House of Representatives Official Hansard No

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

House of Representatives Official Hansard No. 19, 2005 Wednesday, 9 November 2005

FORTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—FOURTH PERIOD

BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

INTERNET The Votes and Proceedings for the House of Representatives are available at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/votes

Proof and Official Hansards for the House of Representatives, the Senate and committee hearings are available at http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard

For searching purposes use http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au

SITTING DAYS—2005 Month Date February 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17 March 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17 May 10, 11, 12, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31 June 1, 2, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23 August 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18 September 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15 October 10, 11, 12, 13, 31 November 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 28, 29, 30 December 1, 5, 6, 7, 8

RADIO BROADCASTS Broadcasts of proceedings of the Parliament can be heard on the following Parliamentary and News Net- work radio stations, in the areas identified.

CANBERRA 103.9FM SYDNEY 630 AM NEWCASTLE 1458 AM GOSFORD 98.1 FM BRISBANE 936 AM GOLD COAST 95.7 FM MELBOURNE 1026 AM ADELAIDE 972 AM PERTH 585 AM HOBART 747 AM NORTHERN TASMANIA 92.5 FM DARWIN 102.5 FM

FORTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—FOURTH PERIOD

Governor-General His Excellency Major-General Michael Jeffery, Companion in the Order of Australia, Com- mander of the Royal Victorian Order, Military Cross

House of Representatives Officeholders Speaker—The Hon. David Peter Maxwell Hawker MP Deputy Speaker—The Hon. Ian Raymond Causley MP Second Deputy Speaker—Mr Henry Alfred Jenkins MP Members of the Speaker’s Panel—The Hon. Dick Godfrey Harry Adams, Mr Robert Charles Baldwin, the Hon. Bronwyn Kathleen Bishop, Mr Michael John Hatton, Mr Peter John Lind- say, Mr Robert Francis McMullan, Mr Harry Vernon Quick, the Hon. Bruce Craig Scott, the Hon. Alexander Michael Somlyay, Mr Kim William Wilkie

Leader of the House—The Hon. Anthony John Abbott MP Deputy Leader of the House—The Hon. Peter John McGauran MP Manager of Opposition Business—Ms Julia Eileen Gillard MP Deputy Manager of Opposition Business—Mr Anthony Norman Albanese MP

Party Leaders and Whips Liberal Party of Australia Leader—The Hon. John Winston Howard MP Deputy Leader—The Hon. Peter Howard Costello MP Chief Government Whip—Mr Kerry Joseph Bartlett MP Government Whips—Mrs Joanna Gash MP and Mr Fergus Stewart McArthur MP

The Nationals Leader—The Hon. Mark Anthony James Vaile MP Deputy Leader—The Hon. Warren Errol Truss MP Chief Whip—Mr John Alexander Forrest MP Whip—Mr Paul Christopher Neville MP

Australian Labor Party Leader—The Hon. Kim Christian Beazley MP Deputy Leader—Ms Jennifer Louise Macklin MP Chief Opposition Whip—The Hon. Leo Roger Spurway Price MP Opposition Whips—Mr Michael David Danby MP and Ms Jill Griffiths Hall MP

Printed by authority of the House of Representatives

Members of the House of Representatives Member Division Party Abbott, Hon. Anthony John Warringah, NSW LP Adams, Hon. Dick Godfrey Harry Lyons, TAS ALP Albanese, Anthony Norman Grayndler, NSW ALP Anderson, Hon. John Duncan Gwydir, NSW Nats Andren, Peter James Calare, NSW Ind Andrews, Hon. Kevin James Menzies, VIC LP Bailey, Hon. Frances Esther McEwen, VIC LP Baird, Hon. Bruce George Cook, NSW LP Baker, Mark Horden Braddon, TAS LP Baldwin, Robert Charles Paterson, NSW LP Barresi, Phillip Anthony Deakin, VIC LP Bartlett, Kerry Joseph Macquarie, NSW LP Beazley, Hon. Kim Christian Brand, WA ALP Bevis, Hon. Archibald Ronald Brisbane, QLD ALP Billson, Hon. Bruce Fredrick Dunkley, VIC LP Bird, Sharon Cunningham, NSW ALP Bishop, Hon. Bronwyn Kathleen Mackellar, NSW LP Bishop, Hon. Julie Isabel Curtin, WA LP Bowen, Christopher Eyles Prospect, NSW ALP Broadbent, Russell Evan McMillan, VIC LP Brough, Hon. Malcolm Thomas Longman, QLD LP Burke, Anna Elizabeth Chisholm, VIC ALP Burke, Anthony Stephen Watson, NSW ALP Byrne, Anthony Michael Holt, VIC ALP Cadman, Hon. Alan Glyndwr Mitchell, NSW LP Causley, Hon. Ian Raymond Page, NSW Nats Ciobo, Steven Michele Moncrieff, Qld LP Cobb, Hon. John Kenneth Parkes, NSW Nats Corcoran, Ann Kathleen Isaacs, VIC ALP Costello, Hon. Peter Howard Higgins, Vic LP Crean, Hon. Simon Findlay Hotham, Vic ALP Danby, Michael Melbourne Ports, Vic ALP Downer, Hon. Alexander John Gosse Mayo, SA LP Draper, Patricia Makin, SA LP Dutton, Hon. Peter Craig Dickson, Qld LP Edwards, Hon. Graham John Cowan, WA ALP Elliot, Maria Justine Richmond, NSW ALP Ellis, Annette Louise Canberra, ACT ALP Ellis, Katherine Margaret Adelaide, SA ALP Elson, Kay Selma Forde, QLD LP Emerson, Craig Anthony Rankin, Qld ALP Entsch, Hon. Warren George Leichhardt, NSW LP Farmer, Hon. Patrick Francis Macarthur, NSW LP Fawcett, David Julian Wakefield, SA LP Ferguson, Laurence Donald Thomas Reid, NSW ALP Ferguson, Martin John, AM Batman, Vic ALP Ferguson, Michael Darrel Bass, TAS LP ii

Members of the House of Representatives Member Division Party Fitzgibbon, Joel Andrew Hunter, NSW ALP Forrest, John Alexander Mallee, VIC Nats Gambaro, Hon. Teresa Petrie, QLD LP Garrett, Peter Robert, AM Kingsford Smith, NSW ALP Gash, Joanna Gilmore, NSW LP Georganas, Steven Hindmarsh, SA ALP George, Jennie Throsby, NSW ALP Georgiou, Petro Kooyong, Vic LP Gibbons, Stephen William Bendigo, Vic ALP Gillard, Julia Eileen Lalor, Vic ALP Grierson, Sharon Joy Newcastle, NSW ALP Griffin, Alan Peter Bruce, Vic ALP Haase, Barry Wayne Kalgoorlie, WA LP Hall, Jill Griffiths Shortland, NSW ALP Hardgrave, Hon. Gary Douglas Moreton, Qld LP Hartsuyker, Luke Cowper, NSW Nats Hatton, Michael John Blaxland, NSW ALP Hawker, David Peter Maxwell Wannon, Vic LP Hayes, Christopher Patrick Werriwa, NSW ALP Henry, Stuart Hasluck, WA LP Hoare, Kelly Joy Charlton, NSW ALP Hockey, Hon. Joseph Benedict North Sydney, NSW LP Howard, Hon. John Winston Bennelong, NSW LP Hull, Kay Elizabeth Riverina, NSW Nats Hunt, Hon. Gregory Andrew Flinders, Vic LP Irwin, Julia Claire Fowler, NSW ALP Jenkins, Harry Alfred Scullin, Vic ALP Jensen, Dennis Geoffrey Tangney, WA LP Johnson, Michael Andrew Ryan, Qld LP Jull, Hon. David Francis Fadden, Qld LP Katter, Hon. Robert Carl Kennedy, Qld Ind Keenan, Michael Fayat Stirling, WA LP Kelly, Hon. De-Anne Margaret Dawson, Qld Nats Kelly, Hon. Jacqueline Marie Lindsay, NSW LP Kerr, Hon. Duncan James Colquhoun, SC Denison, Tas ALP King, Catherine Fiona Ballarat, Vic ALP Laming, Andrew Charles Bowman, Qld LP Lawrence, Hon. Carmen Mary Fremantle, WA ALP Ley, Hon. Sussan Penelope Farrer, NSW LP Lindsay, Peter John Herbert, Qld LP Livermore, Kirsten Fiona Capricornia, Qld ALP Lloyd, Hon. James Eric Robertson, NSW LP Macfarlane, Hon. Ian Elgin Groom, Qld LP Macklin, Jennifer Louise Jagajaga, Vic ALP Markus, Louise Elizabeth Greenway, NSW LP May, Margaret Ann McPherson, Qld LP McArthur, Fergus Stewart Corangamite, Vic LP McClelland, Robert Bruce Barton, NSW ALP iii

Members of the House of Representatives Member Division Party McGauran, Hon. Peter John Gippsland, Vic Nats McMullan, Robert Francis Fraser, ACT ALP Melham, Daryl Banks, NSW ALP Moylan, Hon. Judith Eleanor Pearce, WA LP Murphy, John Paul Lowe, NSW ALP Nairn, Hon. Gary Roy Eden-Monaro, NSW LP Nelson, Hon. Brendan John Bradfield, NSW LP Neville, Paul Christopher Hinkler, Qld Nats O’Connor, Brendan Patrick John Gorton, Vic ALP O’Connor, Gavan Michael Corio, Vic ALP Owens, Julie Ann Parramatta, NSW ALP Panopoulos, Sophie Indi, Vic LP Pearce, Hon. Christopher John Aston, Vic LP Plibersek, Tanya Joan Sydney, NSW ALP Price, Hon. Leo Roger Spurway Chifley, NSW ALP Prosser, Hon. Geoffrey Daniel Forrest, WA LP Pyne, Hon. Christopher Maurice Sturt, SA LP Quick, Harry Vernon Franklin, Tas ALP Randall, Don James Canning, WA LP Richardson, Kym Kingston, SA LP Ripoll, Bernard Fernando Oxley, Qld ALP Robb, Andrew John Goldstein, Vic LP Roxon, Nicola Louise Gellibrand, Vic ALP Rudd, Kevin Michael Griffith, Qld ALP Ruddock, Hon. Philip Maxwell Berowra, NSW LP Sawford, Rodney Weston Port Adelaide, SA ALP Schultz, Albert John Hume, NSW LP Scott, Hon. Bruce Craig Maranoa, Qld Nats Secker, Patrick Damien Barker, SA LP Sercombe, Robert Charles Grant Maribyrnong, Vic ALP Slipper, Hon. Peter Neil Fisher, Qld LP Smith, Anthony David Hawthorn Casey, Vic LP Smith, Stephen Francis Perth, WA ALP Snowdon, Hon. Warren Edward Lingiari, NT ALP Somlyay, Hon. Alexander Michael Fairfax, Qld LP Southcott, Andrew John Boothby, SA LP Stone, Hon. Sharman Nancy Murray, Vic LP Swan, Wayne Maxwell Lilley, Qld ALP Tanner, Lindsay James Melbourne, Vic ALP Thompson, Cameron Paul Blair, QLD LP Thomson, Kelvin John Wills, Vic ALP Ticehurst, Kenneth Vincent Dobell, NSW LP Tollner, David William Solomon, NT CLP Truss, Hon. Warren Errol Wide Bay, QLD Nats Tuckey, Hon. Charles Wilson O’Connor, WA LP Turnbull, Malcolm Bligh Wentworth, NSW LP Vaile, Hon. Mark Anthony James Lyne, NSW Nats Vale, Hon. Danna Sue Hughes, NSW LP iv

Members of the House of Representatives Member Division Party Vamvakinou, Maria Calwell, VIC ALP Vasta, Ross Xavier Bonner, QLD LP Wakelin, Barry Hugh Grey, SA LP Washer, Malcolm James Moore, WA LP Wilkie, Kim William Swan, WA ALP Windsor, Antony Harold Curties New England, NSW Ind Wood, Jason Peter La Trobe, VIC LP

PARTY ABBREVIATIONS ALP—Australian Labor Party; LP—Liberal Party of Australia; Nats—The Nationals; Ind—Independent; CLP—Country Liberal Party; AG—Australian Greens

Heads of Parliamentary Departments Clerk of the Senate—H Evans Clerk of the House of Representatives—I C Harris Secretary, Department of Parliamentary Services—H R Penfold QC

HOWARD MINISTRY

Prime Minister The Hon. John Winston Howard MP Minister for Trade and Deputy Prime Minister The Hon. Mark Anthony James Vaile MP Treasurer The Hon. Peter Howard Costello MP Minister for Transport and Regional Services The Hon. Warren Errol Truss MP Minister for Defence and Leader of the Govern- Senator the Hon. Robert Murray Hill ment in the Senate Minister for Foreign Affairs The Hon. Alexander John Gosse Downer MP Minister for Health and Ageing and Leader of the The Hon. Anthony John Abbott MP House Attorney-General The Hon. Philip Maxwell Ruddock MP Minister for Finance and Administration, Deputy Senator the Hon. Nicholas Hugh Minchin Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry The Hon. Peter John McGauran MP and Deputy Leader of the House Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Senator the Hon. Amanda Eloise Vanstone Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs Minister for Education, Science and Training The Hon. Dr Brendan John Nelson MP Minister for Family and Community Services and Senator the Hon. Kay Christine Lesley Patterson Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources The Hon. Ian Elgin Macfarlane MP Minister for Employment and Workplace Rela- The Hon. Kevin James Andrews MP tions and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service Minister for Communications, Information Tech- Senator the Hon. Helen Lloyd Coonan nology and the Arts Minister for the Environment and Heritage Senator the Hon. Ian Gordon Campbell

(The above ministers constitute the cabinet)

HOWARD MINISTRY—continued

Minister for Justice and Customs and Manager of Senator the Hon. Christopher Martin Ellison Government Business in the Senate Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation Senator the Hon. Ian Douglas Macdonald Minister for the Arts and Sport Senator the Hon. Charles Roderick Kemp Minister for Human Services The Hon. Joseph Benedict Hockey MP Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs The Hon. John Kenneth Cobb MP

Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer The Hon. Malcolm Thomas Brough MP Special Minister of State Senator the Hon. Eric Abetz Minister for Vocational and Technical Education The Hon. Gary Douglas Hardgrave MP and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister Minister for Ageing The Hon. Julie Isabel Bishop MP Minister for Small Business and Tourism The Hon. Frances Esther Bailey MP Minister for Local Government, Territories and The Hon. James Eric Lloyd MP Roads Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assist- The Hon. De-Anne Margaret Kelly MP ing the Minister for Defence Minister for Workforce Participation The Hon. Peter Craig Dutton MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Fi- The Hon. Dr Sharman Nancy Stone MP nance and Administration Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Indus- The Hon. Warren George Entsch MP try, Tourism and Resources Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health The Hon. Christopher Maurice Pyne MP and Ageing Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for De- The Hon. Teresa Gambaro MP fence Parliamentary Secretary (Trade) Senator the Hon. John Alexander Lindsay Mac- donald Parliamentary Secretary (Foreign Affairs) and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Im- The Hon. Bruce Fredrick Billson MP migration and Multicultural and Indigenous Af- fairs Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister The Hon. Gary Roy Nairn MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer The Hon. Christopher John Pearce MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the The Hon. Gregory Andrew Hunt MP Environment and Heritage Parliamentary Secretary (Children and Youth Af- The Hon. Sussan Penelope Ley MP fairs) Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Educa- The Hon. Patrick Francis Farmer MP tion, Science and Training Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agri- Senator the Hon. Richard Mansell Colbeck culture, Fisheries and Forestry

vii

SHADOW MINISTRY

Leader of the Opposition The Hon. Kim Christian Beazley MP Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Jennifer Louise Macklin MP Minister for Education, Training, Science and Research Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Shadow Senator Christopher Vaughan Evans Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Shadow Minister for Family and Community Services Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Senator Stephen Michael Conroy Shadow Minister for Communications and In- formation Technology Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Op- Julia Eileen Gillard MP position Business in the House Shadow Treasurer Wayne Maxwell Swan MP Shadow Attorney-General Nicola Louise Roxon MP Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Stephen Francis Smith MP Industrial Relations Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Kevin Michael Rudd MP and Shadow Minister for International Security Shadow Minister for Defence Robert Bruce McClelland MP Shadow Minister for Regional Development The Hon. Simon Findlay Crean MP Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Re- Martin John Ferguson MP sources, Forestry and Tourism Shadow Minister for Environment and Heritage, Anthony Norman Albanese MP Shadow Minister for Water and Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House Shadow Minister for Housing, Shadow Minister Senator Kim John Carr for Urban Development and Shadow Minister for Local Government and Territories Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Kelvin John Thomson MP Shadow Minister for Human Services Shadow Minister for Finance Lindsay James Tanner MP Shadow Minister for Superannuation and Inter- Senator the Hon. Nicholas John Sherry generational Finance and Shadow Minister for Banking and Financial Services Shadow Minister for Child Care, Shadow Minister Tanya Joan Plibersek MP for Youth and Shadow Minister for Women Shadow Minister for Employment and Workforce Senator Penelope Ying Yen Wong Participation and Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility

(The above are shadow cabinet ministers)

viii

SHADOW MINISTRY—continued Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs and Laurie Donald Thomas Ferguson MP Shadow Minister for Population Health and Health Regulation Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries Gavan Michael O’Connor MP Shadow Assistant Treasurer, Shadow Minister for Joel Andrew Fitzgibbon MP Revenue and Shadow Minister for Small Busi- ness and Competition Shadow Minister for Transport Senator Kerry Williams Kelso O’Brien Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation Senator Kate Alexandra Lundy Shadow Minister for Homeland Security and The Hon. Archibald Ronald Bevis MP Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Se- curity Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Alan Peter Griffin MP Shadow Special Minister of State Shadow Minister for Defence Industry, Procure- Senator Thomas Mark Bishop ment and Personnel Shadow Minister for Immigration Anthony Stephen Burke MP Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Senator Jan Elizabeth McLucas Carers Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs and Senator Joseph William Ludwig Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate Shadow Minister for Overseas Aid and Pacific Robert Charles Grant Sercombe MP Island Affairs Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Reconcilia- Peter Robert Garrett MP tion and the Arts Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of John Paul Murphy MP the Opposition Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence and The Hon. Graham John Edwards MP Veterans’ Affairs Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education Kirsten Fiona Livermore MP Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment Jennie George MP and Heritage Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Bernard Fernando Ripoll MP Infrastructure and Industrial Relations Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration Ann Kathleen Corcoran MP Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury Catherine Fiona King MP Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Senator Ursula Mary Stephens Water Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern The Hon. Warren Edward Snowdon MP Australia and Indigenous Affairs

CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, 9 NOVEMBER CHAMBER Questions To the Speaker— Contingent Notice of Motion...... 1 Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Amendment Bill 2005— First Reading ...... 1 Second Reading...... 1 Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Other Measures) Bill 2005— First Reading ...... 2 Second Reading...... 2 Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work) Bill 2005— First Reading ...... 8 Second Reading...... 8 Australian Citizenship Bill 2005— First Reading ...... 9 Second Reading...... 9 Australian Citzenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005— First Reading ...... 14 Second Reading...... 14 Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005— Second Reading...... 14 Ministerial Arrangements ...... 69 Questions Without Notice— Workplace Relations...... 70 South Asia Earthquake ...... 70 Workplace Relations...... 71 Distinguished Visitors...... 72 Questions Without Notice— National Security...... 72 Workplace Relations...... 73 National Security...... 75 Distinguished Visitors...... 75 Questions Without Notice— Workplace Relations...... 75 Economy...... 76 Workplace Relations...... 77 Workplace Relations...... 77 Workplace Relations...... 79 Trade...... 79 Welfare to Work...... 80 Iraq ...... 82 Illegal Fishing...... 83 Private Health Insurance...... 83 Oil for Food Program ...... 84 Social Welfare ...... 86 Questions to the Speaker— National Security...... 88 Uniform Summertime...... 88 Questions in Writing...... 88

CONTENTS—continued

Questions in Writing...... 88 Documents ...... 88 Matters of Public Importance— Australian Wheat Board ...... 89 Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Serious Drug Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2005 ...... 101 Copyright Amendment (Film Directors’ Rights) Bill 2005 ...... 101 Customs Tariff Amendment (Commonwealth Games) Bill 2005— Assent ...... 101 Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 2005— Report from Main Committee ...... 101 Third Reading...... 102 Australian Workplace Safety Standards Bill 2005...... 102 National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (Repeal, Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2005— Returned from the Senate ...... 102 Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2005— First Reading ...... 102 Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2005 Budget Measures) Bill 2005— Consideration of Senate Message...... 102 Migration and Ombudsman Legislation Amendment Bill 2005...... 102 Tax Laws Amendment (Superannuation Contributions Splitting) Bill 2005— Referred to Main Committee...... 102 Main committee— Native Title Committee—Reference ...... 102 Committees— Electoral Matters Committee—Report...... 102 Public Works Committee—Report ...... 102 Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005— Second Reading...... 104 Adjournment— Workplace Relations...... 155 Remembrance Day ...... 156 Workplace Relations...... 157 National Security...... 158 Workplace Relations...... 160 Parliamentary Delegation to the Middle East...... 161 Notices ...... 162 MAIN COMMITTEE Statements By Members— Workplace Relations...... 165 Children with Disabilities...... 166 Dental Services...... 166 Muslim Community ...... 167 Balgownie War Memorial ...... 168 Gilmore Youth Leadership Forum...... 169 Workplace Relations...... 170 Queensland: Health ...... 171 Remembrance Day ...... 171 Australian Capital Territory: Jail ...... 172

CONTENTS—continued

Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 2005— Second Reading...... 173 Consideration in Detail...... 193 Committees— Environment and Heritage Committee—Report ...... 194 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Commonwealth Funded Programs—(Question No. 723) ...... 216 Opinion Polls—(Question No. 1068)...... 217 Opinion Polls—(Question No. 1081)...... 218 Recruitment Agencies—(Question No. 1105)...... 219 Commonwealth Property—(Question No. 1995)...... 227 Commonwealth Property—(Question No. 1998)...... 228 Commonwealth Property—(Question No. 2382)...... 230

Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1

Wednesday, 9 November 2005 That this bill be now read a second time. ————— I am pleased to announce that the United The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) Kingdom and Australian governments have took the chair at 9.00 am and read prayers. agreed to a supplementary agreement to the QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement. Contingent Notice of Motion This bill amends the Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act 1970 to incorpo- The SPEAKER (9.01 am)—The Man- rate the supplementary agreement. ager of Opposition Business sought my views yesterday in connection with contin- The original Anglo-Australian Telescope gent notices of motion such as were used Agreement was signed on 25 September during consideration of bills for the further 1969 and began a major scientific collabora- privatisation of Telstra. The term ‘contingent tion between Australia and the United King- notice of motion’ has a specific parliamen- dom. In the early 1970s the Anglo-Australian tary meaning, as explained in House of Rep- telescope was constructed at Siding Springs resentatives Practice, pages 290-291. This near Coonabarabran in New South Wales. device was not used during the consideration With a mirror diameter of 3.9 metres and of Telstra bills recently. However, standing state-of-the-art design it was then one of the orders were suspended to place a limit on the largest and most sophisticated optical telescopes in existence. time for consideration. This procedure has been used on two other occasions in recent Over the ensuing 35 years the Anglo- times. Australian telescope has made a significant While as Speaker I preside over sittings of contribution to astronomy, both in Australia and internationally. the House, it is not normally my role to comment on the tactics or strategies adopted Even today the Anglo-Australian tele- by government or opposition members. My scope remains one of the most productive role is to facilitate the orderly process of the major telescopes in the world, particularly chamber. I am not privy to discussions be- amongst the four metre class of telescope. tween the clerks and government or non- Recent scientific highlights include the dis- government members unless the members covery of ‘cosmic ripples’ which help ex- inform me or authorise the clerks to inform plain why the universe is as lumpy as it is, me. Neither I nor my office was involved in the discovery of the 100th extra-solar planet the arrangements referred to by the member. and the discovery of a new type of ultra- compact dwarf galaxy. ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN TELESCOPE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT In 2001 the United Kingdom government BILL 2005 advised that it wanted to end its involvement First Reading with the Anglo-Australian telescope. Under the current Anglo-Australian Telescope Bill presented by Dr Nelson, and read a Agreement either party has the right to ter- first time. minate the agreement with five years notice. Second Reading Rather than terminating the agreement in Dr NELSON (Bradfield—Minister for 2006, however, Australia and the United Education, Science and Training) (9.02 Kingdom agreed to extend the collaboration am)—I move: until 2010 under arrangements that allow the

CHAMBER 2 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

United Kingdom government to gradually withdrawal of United Kingdom funding, it reduce its funding commitment. also gives Australia greater flexibility in de- The extension of Anglo-Australian col- termining its contribution. laboration is a most welcome development. Full details of the measures in the bill are It has, I believe, played an important part in contained in the explanatory memorandum the development of Australian astronomy circulated to honourable members. into one of our premier research disciplines. I commend this bill to the House and pre- It is a discipline that brings much interna- sent the explanatory memorandum. tional recognition to our scientific and tech- Debate (on motion by Mr Gavan nological capacity. O’Connor) adjourned. The United Kingdom government has also EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE agreed, under the supplementary agreement, RELATIONS LEGISLATION to gift its half of the Anglo-Australian tele- AMENDMENT (WELFARE TO WORK scope and the associated facilities to Austra- AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2005 lia in July 2010. The Anglo-Australian telescope will remain a valuable scientific and First Reading educational tool for Australia for many years Bill presented by Mr Andrews, and read a to come. first time. The supplementary agreement makes a Second Reading number of amendments to the original Mr ANDREWS (Menzies—Minister for agreement in order to facilitate the gradual Employment and Workplace Relations and phasing out of United Kingdom involve- Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the ment. Public Service) (9.07 am)—I move: It provides that observing time is to be al- That this bill be now read a second time. located according to the financial contribu- Introduction tion of each country, rather than shared equally as at present. The government’s $3.6 billion Welfare to Work package recognises that every Austra- It explicitly allows the Anglo-Australian lian of working age has the right, and de- Telescope Board—the binational body that serves the opportunity, to participate in the operates the Anglo-Australian telescope— nation’s prosperity. more scope for earning external income. As- sociated with the Anglo-Australian telescope The best way for people to do this is by is one of the most advanced and innovative having a job and engaging in the economic astronomical instrument laboratories in the and social life of our nation. world. It has produced, and is producing, The economic record of the last decade is major instruments both for the Anglo- an impressive one. Australia’s prosperity is Australian telescope and for large overseas no accident. Unemployment has been re- telescopes such as the Japanese Subaru tele- duced to 5.1 per cent and, due to the creation scope in Hawaii. of more than 1.7 million new jobs, employ- The supplementary agreement now allows ment is at a record high with more than each country to determine the level of its seven million Australians in full-time work. contribution above that minimum level inde- The spectre of unemployment has given pendently of the other. While the primary away in many places to labour shortages, reason for this change is to allow the gradual especially of skilled labour. The unemploy-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 3 ment queues of the early 1990s have dimin- cycle of work, higher incomes and more sus- ished, but the ranks of the disabled pension- tainable and better targeted welfare expendi- ers and sole parent beneficiaries have grown ture. rapidly. Too many children still grow up in At a cost of $3.2 billion, the Welfare to jobless households. Work measures covered by this bill focus on At a time of sustained economic growth assisting parents, people with disabilities, the and unemployment at 29-year lows, it is un- mature aged and the very long term unem- acceptable to have 2.5 million or 20 per cent ployed. of working age Australians on income sup- This bill will respond to our twin chal- port. Of these, more than 1.3 million people lenges: the imperatives to increase participa- are in receipt of parenting payment or the tion for these groups and reduce their level disability support pension and have few, if and incidence of welfare dependence. any, participation requirements. Newstart allowance will be enhanced, ad- It is also unacceptable to have 700,000 ditional employment assistance will be pro- children growing up in jobless households, in vided, compliance arrangements will be im- which two or three generations of Austra- proved to encourage and reward participation lians may not know what it is like to have a and job seekers will be able to connect more job, let alone steady employment and regular quickly with the work force through Rapid- income. Connect. No-one denies the fact that a government Parents—availability to work must preserve a well-targeted social safety Parents out of the work force for long pe- net while at the same time encouraging riods of time are in danger of losing the skills working age people to find jobs and remain and self-confidence necessary for them to employed. These welfare reforms demon- return to work. Single parents spend around strate the government’s strong commitment 12 years on average on income support. It is to this principle. not surprising that some parents find it diffi- At the same time, people on welfare de- cult to transfer back into work after extended serve more support and it is vital for Austra- periods out of the labour force. lia’s continuing prosperity that they be given Under the measures, the core requirement every assistance and opportunity in which to for principal carer parents on income support achieve better outcomes. payments will be to look for part-time work, Increasing economic participation if they have the capacity and availability to The bill meets with community standards do so, generally when their youngest child about the need for a balance of assistance, turns six and is ready for school. incentives and obligations to increase par- If they are unable to find work, they will ticipation and reduce welfare dependence continue to keep their income support. In amongst working age Australians. many cases parents meeting their require- Moving from welfare to work helps peo- ments through part-time work will retain ple achieve higher incomes and a better stan- part-rate income support. dard of living, participate in mainstream so- These reforms are in line with community cial and economic life and achieve a better expectations and are modest by international future for their families. It also reduces the standards. obligation on taxpayers, creating a positive

CHAMBER 4 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

From 1 July 2006 new applicants will be If a parent has special family circum- eligible for parenting payment single when stances such as these, they will be taken into their youngest child is aged less than eight. account when determining their participation For parenting payment partnered applicants, requirements under the Welfare to Work this will apply when their youngest child is changes, and the parent may be eligible for a less than six. Once their youngest child turns temporary exemption. either six, for parenting payment partnered Circumstances where the parent has mul- recipients, or eight, for parenting payment tiple caring responsibilities or cannot find single recipients, they will typically go on to suitable child care will also be taken into Newstart. Single principal carer parents in consideration. receipt of Newstart allowance will also have Income supplement access to the pensioner concession card, the pharmaceutical allowance and the telephone All principal carer parents who are regis- allowance. tered and active foster carers, home educators or distance educators will be exempt Principal carers on Newstart or youth al- from participation requirements for a period lowance, other than full-time students or new of up to 12 months at a time and will receive apprentices, will have a requirement to look a new rate that tops up their income support for paid work of 15 hours a week or more. payment to the equivalent of the parenting Parents qualifying for parenting payment payment single rate. This applies for the pe- single from 1 July 2006 will have a job riod of the exemption and is reviewable. search requirement when their youngest child turns six. The new rate will be indexed from 1 July 2006 so that it will continue to cover any Parents on parenting payment single or difference between parenting payment single partnered on 30 June 2006 can stay on that and Newstart allowance. payment, under current eligibility provisions, until their youngest child turns 16. However, To support these changes, from 1 July they will have a job search requirement from 2006 more parents who have children with the latter of 1 July 2007 or when their very challenging physical, intellectual, psy- youngest child turns seven. chological or behavioural disabilities will qualify for an expanded carer payment. This The Australian government has no inten- will be provided for in a separate bill. tion of placing requirements on parents that could inhibit their ability to care for their Victims of domestic violence children. Parents’ individual circumstances Principal carer parents who are subject to will be taken into account when determining family breakdown associated with domestic their participation requirements. violence will be temporarily exempted from Special family circumstances participation requirements. Others who have been subjected to domestic violence will be The government also recognises that some temporarily exempted from participation principal carer parents—for example, regis- requirements under current, more general tered and active foster carers, distance educa- exemption provisions. tors, home schoolers or those who have large families or a disabled child—may be un- Additionally, principal carer parents who available for work because of the need to have undergone a highly stressful family focus fully on their caring responsibilities. breakdown may be eligible for a period of stabilisation before participation require-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 5 ments commence. This will give them time for people with disabilities who are unable to to adjust before looking for work. work. At the same time, the government be- Improved child-care provisions will assist lieves long-term dependence on the disability parents returning to the work force. The support pension is not the best option for measures will provide the additional outside people who have the ability to work reason- school hours child care necessary to reduce able hours, without ongoing support, in the barriers parents face in moving from welfare open labour market. to work, as well as addressing the current Australian government spending on the high demand for places. Principal carer par- disability support pension alone will exceed ents with part-time work requirements will $8 billion in 2004-05. In 1980, 2.3 per cent not be expected to take up work if it occurs of working age people were claiming the outside school hours and no suitable child disability support pension. By June 2005 this care is available, or the cost of care would proportion had more than doubled to over result in a very low or negative financial gain five per cent or 705,000 people. from working. Only around 10 per cent of DSP recipients The government recognises that some are in the paid work force in Australia while parents may have barriers to overcome as the average among OECD countries is they enter or re-enter the work force and is around 30 per cent. The changes to income committed to providing assistance to those support arrangements and the increased with obligations to seek work and will pro- funding for employment services and the vide additional employment focused services Workplace Modifications Scheme are de- to help jobless parents find work. signed to encourage and assist people with Extra Employment Services disabilities to test their capacity to work. A new employment preparation service From 1 July 2006 the focus will shift to will be available through Job Network to the capacity people have to work—not their assist parents with school-age children to incapacity or their inability to work. If peo- find work and overcome barriers to employ- ple with a disability have the capacity to ment by equipping them with skills to re- work between 15 and up to 30 hours per enter the work force. week, without ongoing support in the open labour market, then they will not be eligible The government will also provide addi- to claim the disability support pension. They tional employment related services to parents will need to apply for another payment, typi- with special needs. Parents who have signifi- cally Newstart or youth allowance (other), cant non-vocational barriers, such as sub- and will be required to look for work. A per- stance abuse or homelessness, to overcome son’s work capacity will be assessed by the before looking for work will be referred to new Comprehensive Work Capacity Assess- the personal support program. ment service. People who were receiving the Parents with a part-time requirement who disability support pension on 10 May 2005 are not working may be required to under- will not be affected by these changes. take an annual mutual obligation activity, Access to other benefits and support including part-time Work for the Dole. People with disabilities will have access to People with a disability—capacity to work the full range of vocational and prevoca- The government is committed to main- tional programs to help them with job prepa- taining a sustainable and adequate safety net ration and job search activities. Places in

CHAMBER 6 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 vocational rehabilitation and employment Mature age job seekers will be supported services will be guaranteed for Newstart and by increased employment assistance. They youth allowance (other) recipients with dis- will also benefit from the new Employment abilities who have part-time work capacity. Preparation Service, which will be able to These people will also get the pensioner assist mature age people to update their skills concession card, pharmaceutical allowance, and prepare them for the modern labour the telephone allowance and other conces- market. sions available to card holders. Job seekers Getting the very-long-term unemployed with a disability and a part-time requirement back into work will also be eligible for a $312 employment The Welfare to Work measures will also entry payment. increase the assistance currently provided Mobility allowance will be increased to under the Job Network active participation $100 per fortnight for people on Newstart model to very-long-term unemployment allowance or youth allowance (other) with an benefit recipients. assessed work capacity of at least 15 hours The new Wage Assist measure will proper week and for those people on the disabil- vide additional incentives to employers to ity support pension being assisted by an em- take on very-long-term unemployed job ployment services provider. If these people seekers in full-time, ongoing employment. increase their hours of work and move off To help develop the work habits needed to income support and continue to work, they enter the labour market job seekers who are will retain eligibility for this mobility allow- not genuine in their efforts to find work may ance. be required to participate in full-time Work People with disabilities and a part-time for the Dole for 25 hours per week. requirement who are not working may also Very-long-term unemployed job seekers be required to undertake an annual mutual with major employment barriers can also be obligation activity, including part-time Work referred to a Comprehensive Work Capacity for the Dole. Assessment to identify if another payment, Mature age job seekers such as the disability support pension, or a Although the participation rate in the la- specialist program, such as vocational reha- bour market has been rising steadily among bilitation or disability open employment ser- mature age Australians, too many mature age vices, is appropriate. people often experience difficulties finding More generous taper rates for Newstart work. allowance Newstart recipients aged 50 to 64 will be Many people moving from welfare to required to seek full-time work—the same work, or increasing their earnings, will bene- requirements applying to younger job seek- fit from the enhanced allowance income test ers. People aged 60 or over will not be re- to be introduced under this bill. quired to participate in Work for the Dole, Under the current Newstart personal in- nor will people aged 50 or over unless they come test, there is no payment reduction for are not genuine in their effort to find work. the first $62 of income per fortnight, while However, job seekers aged 55 or over will be payment is reduced by 50c in the dollar for able to fully meet their activity requirements income between $62 and $142 per fortnight, through part-time work and/or voluntary and 70c in the dollar thereafter. work totalling at least 15 hours a week.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 7

The new income test is more generous. of a recovery fee set at 10 per cent of the The $62 per fortnight free area is unchanged, debt incurred. but the income range over which the 50c in There will be special arrangements for the dollar reduction applies will be increased vulnerable people, such as dependent chil- from $142 to $250 per fortnight, with pay- dren, under the new compliance framework, ment being reduced by 60c in the dollar including case management and limited fi- thereafter. The rate at which someone’s in- nancial assistance where vulnerable people come affects their partner’s allowance has and third parties may be unduly affected by also been reduced from 70c in the dollar to non-payment periods. Vulnerable clients, 60c in the dollar. These changes will improve such as people with intellectual disabilities, rewards from part-time work and help people will also be clearly flagged so that their cir- move from welfare to work. cumstances are taken into account in cases of Youth allowance—other than for full-time noncompliance. students or new apprentices—widow allow- Current legislative safeguards relating to ance, partner allowance, mature age allow- the imposition of penalties, such as the need ance and sickness allowance will also be for requirements to be reasonable and the changed in line with the changes for New- need to consider a job seeker’s reasons for start allowance. noncompliance, will continue to apply for A fair but firm compliance regime both vulnerable and non-vulnerable job This bill abolishes the current breaching seekers. In addition, the current review and regime, under which job seekers can incur appeals system will be retained. This allows long-lasting financial penalties regardless of any job seeker to ask Centrelink to review any subsequent efforts to meet their require- any adverse decision and, if not satisfied ments. with the outcome of that review, to appeal the matter to an external tribunal. The new compliance framework included in this bill will more clearly link participa- Work First approach tion to payment and will reward those who RapidConnect is a ‘work first’ approach are willing to re-engage quickly. A job seeker designed to provide assistance to job seekers without a record of repeated noncompliance as soon as possible. Connecting job seekers who commits a participation failure, such as to their Job Network member quickly should missing an interview with an employment reduce frictional unemployment and improve service provider, will be given the opportu- job seekers’ chances of finding a job. nity to avoid any financial penalty by quickly Under RapidConnect, a job seeker who re-engaging with that provider. contacts Centrelink to inquire about Newstart Job seekers who persist with their non- or youth allowance will be referred directly compliance, despite being repeatedly to Job Network. Job seekers who do not con- warned, will lose their payments. As a deter- nect with their Job Network member may rent to repeated participation failures or more experience an impact on their income sup- serious failures, such as refusing a job offer, port. This ‘work first’ approach is at the cor- an eight-week non-payment period will ap- nerstone of the government’s Welfare to ply. This bill also introduces a more equita- Work measures. ble means of deterring income support recipients from deliberately failing to declare or underdeclaring their earnings, in the form

CHAMBER 8 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

Conclusion The government has made its choice, and The government firmly believes that the that choice is to pursue the necessary reforms best form of welfare is a job. As Tony Blair, responsibly, mindful that these measures are the current Prime Minister of the United directed at securing the future prosperity of Kingdom, has said, ‘Fairness starts with the Australia, and providing the opportunity for chance of a job.’ all Australians to participate in that prosperity. I note that there has been little support from the opposition for the government’s I commend the bill to the House and pre- reforms. They refuse to acknowledge that sent the explanatory memorandum. people on welfare have the same aspirations Debate (on motion by Mr Gavan as other Australians. O’Connor) adjourned. The opposition will claim that they sup- FAMILY AND COMMUNITY port the notion that it is important to assist SERVICES LEGISLATION unemployed people into work; however, they AMENDMENT (WELFARE TO WORK) do not support the movement of people from BILL 2005 pensions to unemployment benefits which First Reading contain mutual obligation requirements. Bill presented by Mr Dutton, and read a The challenge of implementing welfare first time. reform is to get the right balance between Second Reading obligations and support. This must be accompanied by appropriate incentives and Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for support mechanisms to ensure that job seek- Workforce Participation) (9.30 am)—I move: ers continue to be provided with services. That this bill be now read a second time. The government believes that these reforms This bill amends the Family Assistance Act strike this balance. and the Family Assistance Administration The majority of Australians would agree Act as part of the government’s Welfare to that it is not unreasonable to expect those Work package of measures to support more people who are available and capable of Australians to move from welfare to work. work to participate in the work force. The The bill contains two child-care related economic and social arguments for such re- measures. form are both compelling and necessary. The number of hours of child-care benefit With this legislation, we face important a family will be eligible to receive in a week choices: the choice between accepting grow- for each child in approved child care, with- ing numbers of people on welfare or doing out meeting the work/training/study test, will something to help them to get a job; the be increased by four hours, from 20 to 24 choice between recognising people’s abilities hours a week. This measure is included in and capacities or continuing to focus on their schedule 1. disabilities and incapacities; the choice be- Increasing the threshold limit of hours for tween tackling unemployment or accepting which a family can receive child-care benefit joblessness as the cost of modern society; will assist parents in maintaining ongoing and the choice between the dignity and value lower levels of work force participation and that comes from participation in the work help their transition to a greater level of par- force or the despair and poverty that results ticipation once their children are older. It from long-term welfare.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 9 also recognises that child-care requirements Act 1948 with the Australian Citizenship Act often exceed actual working hours. 2005. Schedule 2 gives effect to the second On 26 January 1949, this great nation of measure, which modifies the ours became, for the first time, a nation of work/training/study test applicable to those Australian citizens. That day marked the who wish to claim child-care benefit for up commencement of the Nationality and Citi- to 50 hours care in a week. To be eligible for zenship Act 1948 and the creation of the up to 50 hours of child-care benefit for a concept and reality of Australian citizenship. week for each child in approved child care, Australia today is vastly different from claimants and their partners who have work what it was when the Nationality and Citi- or work related commitments, or training or zenship Bill 1948 was introduced to the par- study commitments, will be required to dem- liament. onstrate that they have engaged in these ac- In 1948 the population of Australia was tivities for at least 15 hours in that week or around 7.8 million. For the hundreds of thou- for at least 30 hours in a fortnight that in- sands of post-World War II European mi- cludes that week. grants making their way to a new future, the This measure ensures that the greatest journey to Australia took many weeks. support is directed to those families with Travel was expensive and many migrants higher levels of work related participation. were unable to return to their country of birth Both measures contained in this bill will for years, and some not at all. apply from 3 July 2006 and demonstrate the What a contrast with today: a population government’s commitment to supporting the of over 20 million, travel to Australia from child-care needs of parents in work, training Europe taking less than 24 hours and the cost and study. of overseas travel within the reach of most I commend this bill to the House and pre- people. sent the explanatory memorandum. Yet, regrettably, some things have not Debate (on motion by Mr Gavan changed. Just as there were following World O’Connor) adjourned. War II, there are still people in parts of the AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP BILL 2005 world who have been displaced as a result of war and tyranny. And, just as we did follow- First Reading ing the war, Australia does its bit and re- Bill presented by Mr Cobb, and read a sponds to these humanitarian crises, working first time. closely with the United Nations High Com- Second Reading missioner for Refugees. Mr JOHN COBB (Parkes—Minister for We have had very successful migration Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (9.32 and humanitarian programs over the years. am)—I move: People from over 200 countries have made That this bill be now read a second time. their home in Australia, a country where op- Today, I have the honour to present two bills portunities abound and where, for many peo- which embody very significant, indeed his- ple, it is the first time in their lives that they toric, changes to our citizenship law. These have enjoyed liberty and freedom from per- two bills replace the Australian Citizenship secution.

CHAMBER 10 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

Our citizenship law and policy have been Australian citizenship is a privilege and not a at the heart of the success of these programs, right. and our law and policy have changed over The new act will deliver better structured, time to reflect changes in Australian society clearer, more accessible law, drafted in the and our interaction with the rest of the world. language of the 21st century. Citizenship is readily available to those Division 1 deals with the circumstances who make their home here and who are pre- by which citizenship is automatically ac- pared to commit to our common future. quired, division 2 deals with the acquisition More than 3.5 million people have chosen to of citizenship by application, division 3 deals become fully participating members of our with the cessation of citizenship, division 4 community. As Australia has matured, the deals with evidence, and division 5 intro- inclusive and non-discriminatory approach duces a framework for the collection, use which has developed has seen citizenship and storage of personal identifiers. become a powerful force in the creation of a The personal identifiers framework is an united and cohesive society. important addition to the law and will in- It is not compulsory to become a citizen. crease the government’s ability to accurately However, the act of becoming a citizen is a identify people who are seeking to become formal commitment to our country and the citizens and those requiring evidence of their values that uniquely define us as Australians. citizenship. Most of those who come under the humani- Another significant measure aimed at tarian program apply to become full partici- safeguarding Australia’s security is the intro- pants of our society as soon as they become duction of a prohibition on approval of an eligible. They eagerly grasp the opportunity application made by a person who is as- to feel the sense of belonging, to make the sessed by ASIO to be a direct or indirect risk commitment, to become one of us. to our security. This provision applies to all The principles underlying the legislation applications—whether they are for citizen- remain unchanged, as does the preamble, ship by descent, by conferral or by resump- although there is a minor change to reflect tion. new terminology. The government believes We do not propose extensive changes to that the overall inclusive and non- the eligibility criteria for the conferral of discriminatory approach to Australian citi- Australian citizenship. There is no change to zenship should continue as the basis for our the current provisions which require a basic citizenship law and policy. This approach knowledge of the English language, an ade- means that we welcome, without undue bar- quate knowledge of the responsibilities and riers, migrants and humanitarian entrants privileges of citizenship, that the applicant is who come to Australia and who decide that likely to reside in or maintain a close rela- they wish to become fully participating tionship with Australia, and, most impor- members of our society. tantly, be of good character. The draft legislation retains the discretion However, as announced in July 2004, for the minister to refuse to approve a per- spouses of Australian citizens will need to son’s application despite the person meeting meet the same requirements as other appli- the specified criteria. The current discretion cants. And, as announced by the Prime Min- is contained in the phrase ‘the minister may’. ister on 8 September, the residential qualify- Retaining the discretion reflects the fact that ing period of not less than two years in Aus-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 11 tralia in the previous five years is being ex- spent a minimum of 12 months in Australia tended to three years. There will be no as a permanent resident. change to the requirement to have spent one There will be only two circumstances in year in Australia in the two years immedi- which a person will be exempt from the re- ately prior to making the application. quirement to spend at least 12 months as a The increase in the residential qualifying permanent resident. period will allow more time for new arrivals The first circumstance involves the spouse to become familiar with the Australian way of an Australian citizen. Some spouses have of life and the values to which they will need very close family and other connections with to commit as citizens. It will also strengthen Australia but find it difficult to accumulate the integrity of the citizenship process by the necessary time as a permanent resident in giving more time for the identification of Australia because they accompany their Aus- people who may represent a risk to Austra- tralian family overseas—for example, in as- lia’s security. sociation with their spouse’s employment. The residence exemptions are being The definition of ‘spouse’ for the purpose of strengthened and made more equitable. this provision will include a de facto spouse. One of the existing provisions allows for The second situation already exists in the the possibility that a person could spend just legislation and allows for periods of lawful one day in Australia as a permanent resident temporary stay in Australia to be treated as and then be eligible for citizenship two years permanent residence where a person would later, provided they can demonstrate that suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if their time spent overseas was of some benefit not allowed to become a citizen. to Australia. There is an important change to the provi- On the other hand, a person who has been sions for children. This relates to the conse- here on temporary visas for several years quences when a child’s Australian citizen before being granted permanent residence parent or parents renounce their citizenship. cannot have that time recognised unless they The current act provides that children in would suffer significant hardship or disad- these cases automatically cease to be citi- vantage if not conferred citizenship. During zens, unless they do not have the citizenship those periods prior to the grant of permanent of another country. This is being replaced residence, people live and work in our com- with a discretionary power so that the cir- munity and develop a close connection with cumstances of each case can be considered Australia and understanding of our way of and a decision made whether or not it is ap- life. It would be unreasonable not to be able propriate for the child’s citizenship to cease. to count some of that time for the purposes The provision will be consistent with those of the citizenship residential qualifying pe- applicable when a parent or parents are de- riod. prived of their citizenship, and will ensure In the future, up to two years spent outside the act is compliant with relevant interna- Australia as a permanent resident or in Aus- tional obligations. tralia as a temporary resident may be treated Registration of citizenship by descent is as time spent in Australia as a permanent another area in which important change is resident, provided the person has been in- proposed. This change is the removal of the volved in activities beneficial to Australia. age limit. These applicants will therefore need to have

CHAMBER 12 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

The policy principle inherent in the legis- which; is to acquire the nationality or citi- lation is that a person must have had a parent zenship of a foreign country, shall, upon that who was an Australian citizen at the time of acquisition, cease to be an Australian citi- their birth. This is made very clear in the new zen’. The provision worked by operation of subdivision on citizenship by descent, with law and took effect as soon as an Australian the statement: acquired the new citizenship. No application ... a person does not become an Australian citizen was necessary and no decision was involved. under this Subdivision unless … a parent of the Not surprisingly, many Australians—both person was an Australian citizen at the time of the in Australia and overseas—did not know person’s birth ... about this provision. They took advantage of While the act has always provided for the opportunities to become a citizen of the registration of children as citizens by de- United Kingdom or the United States, for scent, the period in which a child had to be example, to make travel and/or work over- registered has changed. Initially children had seas easier. Many also continued to identify to be registered within one year of birth, or themselves as Australians and even travel on such further period as the minister allowed. their Australian passports, completely un- In 1970 it changed to five years or such fur- aware that they were no longer entitled to its ther period as allowed, in 1984 the time limit protection. The government was also un- was within 18 years of the birth and in 2002 aware of the change in their status—until, this was changed to 25 years. Unfortunately, that is, the person tried to renew their Austra- not all Australians overseas were aware of lian passport or register a child as an Austra- these time limits, and some simply did not lian citizen. get around to completing the paperwork. The Children born after their Australian parent result was that their children were not regis- or parents lost their citizenship are not eligi- tered and could not access their Australian ble for registration of citizenship by descent. heritage. Many people in this circumstance They do not meet the essential requirement have identified themselves as Australians but of an Australian citizen parent at the time of have been unable to obtain legal recognition their birth. Provision has been made for these of this status. The changes in the age limit people to apply for citizenship by conferral. over the years have attempted to address this In recognition of their particular circum- issue. However, the changes did not provide stances, they will not be required to make the any relief for those who were already older pledge. than the new age limits. The removal of the age limit will allow these people to get that The second involves a small group of formal recognition. people born in Papua, before Papua New Guinea Independence Day in September There are two other circumstances in 1975, who have a parent born in Australia as which we have provided for people to access we know it now. The Australian citizenship their Australian heritage. legislation drafted to complement the crea- The first covers the adult children of Aus- tion of an independent Papua New Guinea tralians who lost their citizenship under sec- did not make allowances for people such as tion 17 of the act which was repealed in Susan Walsh, whose mother was Papuan and 2002. Section 17 provided that adult Austra- whose father was born in New South Wales. lians who did ‘any act or thing—the sole or Registration as a citizen by descent is not dominant purpose of which; and the effect of possible in Ms Walsh’s case because those

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 13 provisions require that the person is born • the resumption provisions for people outside Australia. Papua, prior to PNG inde- who had lost their citizenship, when ac- pendence, was a part of Australia for the quiring another, had no age limit at all; purposes of Australian citizenship law. While and only a handful of people will benefit from • there are no existing provisions for peo- this change, it upholds an important principle who renounce to acquire another ple. citizenship. No provision has been made for children It is the government’s view that the prin- born to a former Australian citizen after that ciples underlying the resumption provisions parent renounced their citizenship. Unlike should apply regardless of whether renuncia- those who lost their citizenship under section tion was for the purpose of retention or ac- 17, people who renounced their citizenship quisition of another citizenship. In future, the were well aware that they had ceased to be only requirements for resumption will be that Australian citizens. They could have had no the person is of good character and, as indi- reasonable expectation of access to Austra- cated earlier, is not a security risk. lian citizenship for any children born after renunciation. Changes to the deprivation powers include: However, the removal of the age limit for • resumption by those who renounced Austra- the introduction of provisions to revoke lian citizenship was announced in July 2004, citizenship acquired as a result of third and it was welcomed by those affected. In party fraud; and most cases of renunciation, people act to re- • strengthening of the revocation provi- tain another citizenship to avoid hardship or sions relating to serious criminal of- economic disadvantage while living in the fences. country of their other nationality. Although Australian citizenship is of course a very many countries now allow dual citizenship, valuable status. While the incidence of fraud this was not always so. There are also a small in the case load is low, the risk of fraud is a number of people who renounce in order to constant. The existing provisions deal with acquire another citizenship so that, for ex- fraud committed by an applicant. Unfortu- ample, they can pursue career objectives nately, there is currently no power to revoke overseas which are limited to nationals of citizenship where that status was acquired as certain countries. a result of fraud by a third party—for exam- Resumption provisions for people who re- ple, a government official or migration agent. nounced their citizenship to retain another The changes will mean that consideration were first introduced in 2002, when we can be given to revoke citizenship in all changed the law to allow dual citizenship. cases involving fraud. An age limit of 25 years was imposed at the Existing law provides for revocation when recommendation of the Australian Citizen- a dual citizen has been convicted, after ap- ship Council. plying for citizenship, of a serious criminal A review of the resumption provisions has offence committed before their application taken account of the fact that: was approved. The extension of this provi- • many of those who renounced their citi- sion to include serious criminal offences zenship to retain another were already committed between approval of an applica- over the age of 25 years in 2002; tion and when the person actually becomes a

CHAMBER 14 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 citizen reflects the existing power to cancel to the transitional and consequential amend- the approval of an application if the person is ments which are necessary as a result of the no longer of good character. amendments proposed by the principal bill. Strengthened proof of identity arrange- I am confident that these bills achieve an ments is essential to protect the integrity of appropriate balance between the inclusive- Australia’s citizenship processes. The new ness of our citizenship legislation and the act explicitly provides that the minister must challenges of the world in which we live—a be satisfied of the applicant’s identity before world where globalisation means no bounda- an application can be approved. ries, a world where some seek to destroy our Personal identifiers, namely photographs way of life and our values. There has never and signatures, are already collected, stored been a better time to be or become an Austra- and used. The new personal identifier divi- lian citizen. Today, more than ever, the value sion provides a legislative framework for the of Australian citizenship cannot be underes- management of those identifiers and within timated. which we can respond to future decisions, I would like to acknowledge the work of and technology developments, in relation to my predecessors in the development of this proof of identity. legislation. The Hon. Gary Hardgrave MP It is important to note that personal identi- undertook the early groundwork for many of fiers collected and stored under the new act the policy changes reflected in the bills. The will only be able to be used for the purposes Hon. Peter McGauran MP continued that of the Citizenship Act. work and was instrumental in obtaining the necessary priority to ensure drafting of the I commend the bill to the House and pre- bills. sent the explanatory memorandum. I commend this bill to the House and pre- Debate (on motion by Mr Gavan sent the explanatory memorandum. O’Connor) adjourned. Debate (on motion by Mr Gavan AUSTRALIAN CITZENSHIP O’Connor) adjourned. (TRANSITIONALS AND CONSEQUENTIALS) BILL 2005 WORKPLACE RELATIONS AMENDMENT (WORK CHOICES) First Reading BILL 2005 Bill presented by Mr Cobb, and read a Second Reading first time. Debate resumed from 8 November, on Second Reading motion by Mr Andrews: Mr JOHN COBB (Parkes—Minister for That this bill be now read a second time. Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (9.52 am)—I move: upon which Mr Stephen Smith moved by way of amendment: That this bill be now read a second time. That all words after “That” be omitted with a The Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and view to substituting the following words: Consequentials) Bill 2005 provides for the “the House declines to give the bill a second transitional changes and consequential reading, because the House condemns the Gov- changes to other legislation which are neces- ernment: sary following the repeal of the old act. The (a) for failing to allow the House of Representa- amendments proposed by this bill give effect tives and the Australian people proper scru-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 15

tiny of the bill prior to the debate in the (m) for destroying rights achieved through the House; hard work of generations of Australian work- (b) for spending over $55 million dollars of tax- ers; payers’ money advertising Liberal Party pol- (n) for undermining the principles of fairness icy proposals before the Work Choices legis- that underpinned the Australian industrial relation has entered the Parliament; lations system for the past hundred years; (c) for misleading the Australian people in those (o) for gutting the Australian Industrial Relations advertisements by making unsubstantiated Commission and eliminating the role of an assertions about the benefits of these changes independent umpire to ensure fair wages and and misrepresenting the extent to which em- conditions and resolve disputes; ployees will lose their rights under the Wo r k (p) for developing proposals that will deliber- Choices legislation; ately distort the workplace bargaining rela- (d) for creating an industrial relations system tionship in favour of employers and against that is extreme, unfair and divisive; employees; (e) for failing to put working families first in (q) for denying Australian employees the capac- developing its plans to dramatically change ity to bargain collectively with their em- Australia’s industrial relations laws; ployer for decent wages and conditions; (f) specifically, for failing to commission and (r) for denying individuals the right to reject publish a Family Impact Statement as prom- individual contracts which cut pay and con- ised during the election for all family related ditions and undermine collective bargaining legislation; and union representation; (g) for failing to provide a guarantee that no (s) for allowing individual contracts to under- individual Australian employee will be worse mine the rights of Australian workers under off under the extreme industrial relations collective agreements and Awards, for in- changes; stance by eliminating penalty rates, shift (h) for attacking the living standards of Austra- loadings, overtime and holiday pay and other lian employees and their families by remov- Award conditions; ing the ‘no disadvantage test’ from collective (t) for removing from almost 4 million employ- and individual agreements; ees any protection from unfair dismissal; (i) by allowing employees to be forced onto (u) for refusing to consult with State Govern- unfair Australian Workplace Agreements as a ments in developing a unitary industrial rela- condition of employment; tions system resulting in an inadequate and (j) for abolishing annual wage increases made incomplete national system; by the Australian Industrial Relations Com- (v) for launching an unprovoked attack on re- mission for workers under Awards with the sponsible trade unions and asserting that objective of reducing the Minimum Wage in those unions have no role in the economic real terms, and by removing the requirement and social future of Australia; that fairness be taken into account in the cal- (w) for proposing to jail union representatives or culation of the Minimum Wage; fine them up to $33,000 if they negotiate to (k) for delaying the next National Wage Case by include health and safety, training and other a period of six months, so that at least 1.7 clauses in agreements; million workers under Awards will not re- (x) for ignoring the concerns of the Australian ceive a wage increase for a period of 18 community and Churches about the adverse months or longer; impact these changes will have on Australian (l) for undermining family life by proposing to employees and their families; give employers the power to change employees’ work hours without reasonable notice;

CHAMBER 16 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

(y) for failing to guarantee that wages will be a change of government’. Even union leaders sustained or increased in real terms under concede that the movement has lost rele- these changes; and vance and is not focused on the interest of (z) for seeking to justify these measures by as- workers. John Robertson, the Secretary of serting that slashing wages will somehow Unions New South Wales, in a reported arti- make Australia more competitive, more pro- cle in the Daily Telegraph on 30 April 2005 ductive, and increase employment”. that was headed ‘The unions disunited: Mr SCHULTZ (Hume) (9.55 am)—In Leader attacks members’ said this: continuing my contribution to this debate on We need to be honest with ourselves ... These the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work laws— Choices) Bill 2005, I make the observation he means IR reform— that many of the comments from the opposition are premised on the absurd, archaic no- are not the biggest threat to the future of the lation that Australians are incapable of think- bour movement. We are. ing for themselves and that they are simply Many of our unions are in a sad state—some have going to comply with the arrogant assump- given up recruiting on the basis it will upset internal power balances. tion that the ACTU knows what is best for them. I find that remarkable, given that in Our political wing (the ALP) is in even worse 1976 the union membership of this country shape—control of local branches is now being fought out by operatives on the public payroll. was 51 per cent of the work force but today it is down to 22 per cent, of which only 17.4 The union movement has no interest in help- per cent of the private sector are members. ing small businesses. Its campaign against workplace relations reform has been predi- The ACTU’s strategy in response to losing cated on the idea that no employee can trust its Senate majority is related to the position their employer and that all employers are that it is in now. Its response has not been to heartless animals, who cannot wait for the reinvent itself and make itself more appeal- chance to exploit or sack their work force. ing to workers; instead it has been to fill the Yet union leaders, deep down, know that workers with fear and loathing in the hope their scare campaign based on evil bosses is that they will vote Labor at the next election not realistic and does not portray the reality so that the Labor Party can implement the in small business workplaces. There is no ACTU’s roll-back policies and return it to its better way to illustrate that than to quote the privileged position. The ACTU’s campaign comments made on Lateline on 8 August of has nothing to do with protecting workers; this year by the ACTU President Sharan Bur- otherwise it would provide them with accu- row. She said: rate information instead of trying to make them feel insecure. It is all about electing a I think you’d be surprised about how flexible small business can be and if they know there’s a Labor government so the unions can once way of keeping a very skilled employee attached again return to their complacent position of to their enterprise ... They tell us they’re worried legislated protection and will not have to about losing skilled workers, particularly at a time adapt to the modern world. of increasingly full employment. On the Sunday program on 29 May 2005 So the question needs to be asked: why is she this was illustrated by Greg Combet. He con- running an $8 million campaign saying that firmed that this was a purely political cam- small business employers will run amok, paign in the week he launched the ACTU’s unfairly sacking their staff under the new campaign when he commented that ‘we need system? The President of the ACTU herself

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 17 has confirmed that she is running a mislead- burn in my electorate, where I made the de- ing scare campaign. cision not to compromise my commitments Despite that scare campaign, the employ- to my constituents and enter public debate ment rate in this country is the highest it has with the unions over these reforms. That has been for three decades. In the Hume elector- been criticised in the local press in my elec- ate the decrease in the unemployment level, torate. However, I feel strongly, as I have whilst not as impressive as the results in always in the 18 years that I have been a some other electorates, where unemployment member of parliament, about my long-term has dropped even more sharply—including commitments. In any case, no amount of fact in the seats of many of the ALP members telling or reassuring will convince those tied who are here today opposing these important up in the union movement that these changes reforms—has been significant in recent are good, that they are a step forward and years. That has been on the back of the that they will one day be noted as a turning strong economic leadership and decision point in our history. making of the Howard government. In Hume These freely available facts have been ac- today unemployment is estimated at just 4.1 cessible and offered by me to those inter- per cent, down from 5.9 per cent during the ested in having an open mind and sharing the last year of the previous Labor government. government’s vision of this way forward. Rural people have suffered years of drought The facts are that under this bill terms and and hardship, but the constituents in Hume conditions will not be abolished. Employees are still finding employment at a higher rate will be able to keep their conditions until today than even 12 months ago—a testament they agree to new arrangements with their to the solid foundations built by this How- employer. There is no obligation to enter into ard-led government. a new agreement under the new system. There has been a large amount of negative Conditions which exist in awards can also press about these reforms in the electorate of exist in agreements, which will now be able Hume, as there has been elsewhere. I under- to run for up to five years, rather than the stand that voters are wary, especially when current maximum of three. This is not a new they have the ALP and union doom and issue; it has been around for some time. It is gloomsters preaching the evils of this legisla- practised in the public sector when public tion at every opportunity. They did the same sector employees offer to forgo some of their thing in 1996, when the Howard govern- conditions in the interests of accommodating ment’s workplace reforms began. Since then some of the financial pressures on them- this government has created more than 1.7 selves or their families. million jobs, seen an increase in real wages The minimum standards will be universal of 14.9 per cent, delivered the lowest unem- and protected by law for the first time at a ployment rates in three decades and reduced federal level. This will include minimum and the chaos caused by industrial disputes to its award classification wages as set by the Fair lowest level since records were first kept Pay Commission, four weeks paid annual more than 90 years ago. Despite this success, leave with an additional week for shift work- the ALP doom and gloomsters are doing it ers—with the option for employees to cash again. out up to two weeks leave, but only at their I would now like to refer to a matter re- own request—52 weeks unpaid parental lated to a union instigated meeting in Goul- leave, 10 days paid personal carers leave, including sick leave, for employees with

CHAMBER 18 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 more than 12 months service, plus two days prohibited reason. Australian workers will of paid compassionate leave, plus an addi- not be worse off as a result of these reforms, tional two days of unpaid carers leave per despite the scaremongering that is out there occasion, which will be available in emer- in the community, driven by the ACTU and gency situations. There will be a maximum the ALP. They will be better off—of that I 38-hour working week. am confident, and I will stake my political Where conditions in an award or an reputation on it. Those people in Hume who agreement are more generous, those condi- have taken the time to acquaint themselves tions will apply. Award conditions will be with the facts believe so too. I will give the protected. Although they will not form part House some illustrations. When asked the of the Australian fair pay and conditions question, ‘Would you rather negotiate an standard, other conditions will be protected, employment agreement or have a union do it including public holidays, rest breaks, meal on your behalf?’ ordinary Australians in the breaks, incentive based payments and bo- electorate of Hume agreed that they would nuses, annual leave loadings, allowances, prefer to negotiate directly with their bosses. penalty rates and shift and overtime loadings. ‘I would probably negotiate’, said one Things such as superannuation, notice of woman. ‘In a small business you’ve got a termination and arrangements for jury ser- relationship with your boss’, said another. ‘I vice and long service leave will also remain don’t know, really, but I suppose I would protected under the existing legislation. choose to do it myself,’ a young woman just starting out in the work force said. Even at Despite the trade unions’ claims, I am de- the other end of the scale, a man with plenty lighted to shed light on the fact that employ- of working years under his belt, whom I ees cannot be forced onto new workplace would describe as a mature individual, said agreements under this new system. Under the same. ‘I would do it myself,’ he said. So Work Choices it will continue to be unlawful four out of five when answering an unsolic- for employers to force employees into new ited question said they could see the benefits agreements. If a worker does not like what is of fostering an open, flexible relationship on offer, they can opt to stay on their current between employers and employees. That arrangements. It is as simple as that. Help might only be a small sample, but I believe it will be provided to employees who require it is an accurate one. in dealing with workplace disputes. Austra- lian workers need not fear these reforms. To I will quote from a letter I received from further protect workers’ rights, a strong in- the President of the Southern Highlands spection service will exist under the new Business Chamber Inc., Mr Terry Oakes- arrangements to assist workers who believe Ash, in reply to a letter I sent to him relating they are not being paid their appropriate enti- to the Workplace Relations Amendment tlements. That is more protection, not less, (Work Choices) Bill. He said: than under the current arrangements. Regarding the increased emphasis on direct bar- Finally, protections against unlawful ter- gaining between employer and employees, we fully support these changes. mination on the basis of family responsibilities, union membership or all types of dis- And here are the pertinent points: crimination will continue to apply for all Employers will be forced to bargain wisely and employees. The onus will be on employers to fairly, otherwise they will not retain the work- prove that the determination was not for a force that they need to run their businesses.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 19

That is a very pertinent point. He continued: ening the economy. It is not about productiv- Employees will be able to negotiate how they ity or employment. It is purely about ideol- want their wages and conditions packaged, a plus ogy, an article of Liberal Party faith— for them. unfinished business for a tired Prime Minis- Regarding the unfair dismissal laws as they relate ter who clearly, judging by the Treasurer’s employers with less than 100 employees, we be- Mr Happy Face demeanour, has done a deal lieve that this will enable employers to be more for his retirement and is looking to his swan selective of the applicants required to run their song, the final jewel in his prime ministerial business and even more prepared to employ addi- crown: the crushing of 100 years of fair in- tional people, knowing that if they do not suit the dustrial relations. This is not reform; this is job, then they can be replaced without being one little man’s obsession. taken to court. Employees will adopt more professional approach in their job application, which These laws undermine pay and conditions should lead to great harmony of em- and they undermine family life. They have ployer/employee relations. all been brought to you courtesy of a $55 I think that says it all, and it is one of the million taxpayer funded propaganda cam- reasons why the unemployment level has paign that has not been about providing in- dropped to its lowest point in 30 years, as I formation. Rather, it has been about spread- said previously. ing disinformation. The government, unwill- In closing, I would like to issue a chal- ing to tell the truth about these laws and try- lenge. I challenge those people in the Hume ing to avoid public scrutiny, has gone to its electorate who may have been brainwashed favourite fallback position: ‘Trust us; it’s and stifled by their union, by their friends or about the economy.’ The government is, by their families about these reforms to edu- however, unable to make the case that the cate themselves fully and then make a deci- laws will create jobs, lift productivity or sion about how these reforms will affect boost living standards. It is using these laws them. I am only too happy to talk to those to distract from its own economic policy people who are willing to listen, and my of- laziness. fice has some very good material—as do all The government in its nine long years in members’ offices—which I am sure many office has failed to tackle the real economic people will be surprised to read. I make the challenges facing this country. That is no point that I made before: at the next opportu- more evident than in its abandonment of the nity when I go to the polls, I will live with manufacturing sector. It has squandered the the decision that I and my parliamentary col- economic reforms of the 1980s and coasted leagues on this side of the House have made along on the coat-tails of Labor’s decisions in supporting this historic piece of legisla- in government. This mob are not economic tion. (Time expired) reformers; they have squandered our eco- Ms KING (Ballarat) (10.09 am)—This nomic growth and have failed to tackle the industrial relations legislation before the real challenges facing this country. And this House today, the Workplace Relations nasty, regressive legislation that reduces Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005, is the wages, removes working conditions and most extreme attack on working families we makes it easier for people to be sacked is the have seen in this country. The Work Choices best they can come up with. This govern- bill—or, as it is now being referred to, the ment’s great idea for economic reform is to ‘What Choices?’ bill—is not about strength- drive wages down so that we can compete

CHAMBER 20 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 with India and China on the wages front. It is fects of this legislation to filter through. But, a race to the bottom. for the thousands of workers in precarious In this debate, I want to look at some of employment situations and in regional and the most worrying aspects of the legislation rural areas where unemployment is higher for working families and to raise some of the than the national average and wages are al- economic issues we should be focusing on. ready lower, it will take little time at all. Re- But first I want to tackle some of the lies the gional areas such as mine with highly con- government have told about this legislation centrated economies are the first to feel the and their failure to be honest with the Austra- brunt of an economic downturn, and they lian public as to its impact on families. will be the first to feel the harsh effects of this law. It has now become second nature for this government to avoid scrutiny. It shows little This is why the $55 million of taxpayers’ regard for the processes of the parliament money spent on spreading disinformation and, by doing so, little regard for the people about these laws is so obscene. I can just see who elected us to represent them. The gov- John Howard almost rubbing his hands with ernment can spend sometimes up to a year glee as he talks to the Liberal Party admen debating and inquiring into issues. A current who have constructed these ads. It is example is its decision to release a discus- Strengthening Medicare all over again: do sion paper on telemarketing rather than to not focus on what you are ripping away from bring on for debate the member for Chis- people; focus on what they get to keep, and holm’s private member’s bill, which actually make it sound so safe and so protected that provides a way forward on these issues. Yet they will thank you for being so generous. it has introduced these 1,252 pages of legis- These ads are full of disinformation. It is lation and explanation, with debate brought what they do not tell you that is the real on in less than 24 hours. The government is story. They do not tell you that fairness has now seeking to limit that debate, with a been removed from the national wage case. number of members on this side of the They do not tell you that the legislation takes House likely to be denied the opportunity to rights against unfair dismissal away from make a contribution. almost every worker in my electorate. They You have to ask: if the government are so do not tell you that the legislation allows proud of this legislation, why do they seek to employers to dismiss workers, with no com- limit debate? Regardless of what we on this pensation, for ‘operational reasons’. They do side of the House do, the government have not tell you that, in destroying the no disad- the numbers. Why not just let the debate run? vantage test, the foundation against which What an act of contempt for the parliament enterprise agreements and AWAs are tested, to guillotine debate on these, the most pro- your capacity to have a whole raft of condi- found changes to the rights of working fami- tions will now be gone. lies. It is the Telstra legislation all over The Liberal Party ads try to give the im- again: rush it through parliament, take some pression that these laws give stronger protec- early hits, but, once it is through, hope the tion than what is there now, feeding off peo- media furore and the disquiet will just go ple’s confusion about their current work away and disappear. rights, when nothing could be further from For people whose skills are in high de- the truth. Under the award system, which the mand, it will take time for the personal ef- government has now said that it wants to

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 21 review—read ‘abolish’—there are currently Australian School of Graduate Management 20 pay and conditions standards protected by says: law. Under this bill, there are just five. Taken These proposed laws really lead towards the low away, or able to be bargained away, are road and there is nothing in the legislation that I rights like redundancy pay and penalty rates. have seen that has a vision of the workplace as a The ads also seek to confuse people by decent place to work. saying that employees’ rights against dis- The debate about this legislation is not about missal are protected by law. They are seeking some minor technical changes or even about to confuse people and to confound the differ- some academic arguments about labour mar- ence between unfair dismissal and unlawful ket supply and demand. This debate is about dismissal, two very different things. Your the kind of country we want to live in. It is right to seek recompense if unfairly dis- about the basic value of whether we believe missed will go in 99 per cent of workplaces, parents should have the capacity to manage and the grounds on which someone can be the difficult balance between work and fam- unlawfully dismissed will be narrowed. Even ily life. It is a debate about whether we will then, you will have to take your employer to continue to be a fair and equal society, one court, with costs potentially being awarded that values families and our relationships against you, instead of to the cheaper, faster more than anything and one that values a fair Industrial Relations Commission. go, justice, tolerance, respect and the right, The arrogance of the Prime Minister in us- no matter whether you are the lowest paid ing millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money cleaner or Kerry Packer, to make the most of on ads that mislead them about the nature of your circumstances. these laws is frankly obscene. The govern- These laws finish the job that John How- ment have only allowed a limited inquiry ard set out to do in 1996. Then, when he tried into this bill, and they have again reneged on to introduce similar laws, the Senate stopped their commitment to Family First by not un- him. They moved some 200 successful dertaking a family impact statement. amendments to the laws in 1996. The Austra- These laws erode the living standards and lian people were protected by the Senate in security of working families. Coupled with that instance but they are protected no more. the draconian cuts to welfare introduced into I have no doubt that these laws will get this place today, they undermine the capacity passed. I have no doubt that the minor mur- of the unemployed and low- and middle- murs of dissent coming from one Nationals income earners to get ahead. The govern- senator will again be bought off. There is no ment tries to argue that these laws make it protection from this government’s laws from more flexible for families to choose their the Senate. hours and to balance work and family under These 1,252 pages represent some of the individual contracts. This flexibility exists most extreme reforms Australian families now, under the current system. What these and workers have ever seen. They are unfair, laws do is provide greater flexibility for the they are divisive and they bring no economic employer to set conditions and remove a benefit. These pages are an assault not only number of obligations on employers to work on the living standards of ordinary working with employees to develop the best outcome families but on our basic values, such as for them and for the enterprise in which they fairness. Nothing more clearly illustrates this work. As Professor Steven Frenkel of the than the removal of fairness as a matter that

CHAMBER 22 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 the so-called Fair Pay Commission has to be delayed. This means that Australia’s low- take into account when it makes wage deci- est paid workers will have to wait at least 18 sions. Under the current system, the Indus- months before any pay increase above their trial Relations Commission makes wage de- current $484.40 a week is even considered. cisions based on fairness. That is explicitly In defence of this so-called Fair Pay stated in section 88B of the current law. But Commission, the government tries to point this legislation removes fairness as a factor out that the Low Pay Commission in the in wage case decisions. The government was United Kingdom is similar and that we happy to pulp some half a million copies of should not be too worried about this, disin- its glossy WorkChoices propaganda pamphlet genuously trying to make out that the com- to insert the word ‘fairness’ on the cover but, missions are somehow even remotely simi- when it comes to actually putting it into law, lar. They are not. In an article in the Age on it is gone. Monday, Robyn May blew the whistle on This legislation removes the power of the this argument. She states: Industrial Relations Commission to set the Britain’s LPC was created to recommend to minimum wage. It hands it over to a gov- government the level at which to set national ernment-appointed board ironically—or per- minimum wages for adults and youth. haps cynically—called the Fair Pay Com- That is where the similarities end. She con- mission. This board will be appointed by a tinues: government that has consistently said that It is genuinely tripartite, with three trade union, minimum wages are too high. The Prime three employer, and three academic Minister asks us to take him on his record on representatives. these matters, claiming that under his gov- Trade union and employer groups were con- ernment real wages have risen. What he is sulted on the appointments. She argues that not prepared to say is that real wages have the most critical difference between the Fair risen in this country not because of the gov- Pay Commission and the Low Pay Commis- ernment but despite the government. sion is one of context and political intent. The Prime Minister has opposed every She states: single increase to the minimum wage that The British LPC was established within a broad has been handed down by the Industrial Re- agenda of ‘social partnership’ and the reinstate- lations Commission. Since 1997 the Prime ment of a minimum wage was part of wider social Minister has recommended on every occa- and industrial relations policy changes that in- sion an increase to the minimum wage below cluded broad poverty-fighting measures. what the commission has agreed. Workers on … … … the minimum wage would be $50 a week or Rather than being an instrument to improve low $2,600 a year worse off if John Howard had pay, the commission, with its narrow economic had his way in setting minimum wages. Had and ideological focus, seems designed more as an the Prime Minister had his way since 1997, instrument for lowering wages. there would have been a real reduction in the Exactly. The reality of John Howard’s record minimum wage, not the increase granted by on the minimum wage is that he thinks it the Industrial Relations Commission. should be lower. The Prime Minister has ab- The government has confirmed that the solutely refused to give a guarantee that no next national wage case to be determined by worker will be worse off under this legisla- this so-called Fair Pay Commission will now tion. He will not give that guarantee because

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 23 he knows that he cannot. He says that he will viously, claims that, under the UK’s Low Pay not give a guarantee but that we should just Commission: judge him on his record. His record on the What is emerging is strong evidence on the ef- minimum wage is that, on every occasion, he fects of minimum wage rises on employment. In has opposed the increase that has been short, the rising minimum wage has had no nega- granted by the Industrial Relations Commis- tive impact on employment. Indeed, the LPC says sion. A reduction in the real value of the employment has grown in the sectors where the minimum wage is nothing but bad social and minimum wage has had most impact. economic news for nearly 20 per cent of The government has also tried to assert that, Australians in the work force and all the by driving the minimum wage down, produc- families they support. tivity will be boosted. Again, it simply can- The Howard government’s public policy not mount any plausible argument on this objective here is partly driven by the belief front. In fact, it is more correct to argue that that, if the minimum wage is reduced, more companies that take solely the low-pay ap- jobs at the bottom end of the scale will be proach are more likely to become caught up created. The government will not state it as in a low productivity cycle. The government clearly as that because there is no interna- would like us to aim for the labour prices of tional or domestic evidence that makes this New Zealand. The radical reforms of New claim even the least bit credible. This Zealand did exactly what the government ‘trickle-down effect’ economics was high- wants to do here: they drove wages down— lighted by the Prime Minister with regard to but they did not lift productivity. the choice of the fictional unemployed per- Tim Colebatch, in an article in the Age son Billy, who, if he wants a job, has to ac- yesterday, argues that, since 1990, the OECD cept an individual contract that takes away estimates that productivity has grown only penalty rates, leave entitlements and other by half as much in New Zealand as it has benefits. The Prime Minister’s response— here in Australia. He states: dog whistling, as usual—when asked about Work Choices confers choice on employers. It this in parliament, smacked uncomfortably give more workers nothing they do not have al- of ‘beggars shouldn’t be choosers’. That is ready, and slowly strips them of group bargaining exactly what the case is under these new in- power ... and it is a deception to tell people they dustrial relations laws. will be better off with a law clearly designed to make them worse off. Research done in Australia by the Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Train- It is wrong to argue that these laws will in- ing suggests that, at best, it is an assertion crease productivity, when there is clear evi- only that lowering wages will create more dence that they will not. jobs. Why is it that, over the past five years Other provisions in this bill are equally of annual minimum wage increases, unem- worrying. Under current law, all employees ployment has fallen? International compari- have access to unfair dismissal provisions. sons show exactly the same trend. In the UK The government for some years has been jobs growth has been at 4.4 per cent, despite trying to remove this for small businesses an increase in the minimum wage. The re- with up to 20 employees. The government verse has occurred in the US, with the mini- gave no indication of this in the last election, mum wage falling by almost 12 per cent and but it has snuck into this legislation a provi- with jobs growth at only 2.2 per cent. Robyn sion that removes unfair dismissal rights for May, in the same Age article referred to pre- employees and businesses with up to 100

CHAMBER 24 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 staff. For businesses with over 100 staff, it The government has completely failed to has also included a provision that it is not a make the case for these laws. It has failed on ground for unfair dismissal if you are sacked the economic front and it has certainly failed for ‘operational reasons’. Essentially, the to support our manufacturing sector in this Treasurer has got what he asked for when he country. It has not addressed the skills crisis. said that he had an open mind on abolishing It has not invested in research and develop- unfair dismissal laws altogether. According ment or in innovation and design; it has not to the bill, ‘operational reasons’ are: looked at the issue of trying to develop in- ... reasons of an economic, technological, struc- dustry plans. tural or similar nature relating to the employer’s In his contribution to the debate, Kim undertaking, establishment, service or business, Beazley quoted Alfred Deakin. As Deakin is or to a part of the employer’s undertaking, estab- a former member for Ballarat, and someone lishment, service or business ... whom we in Ballarat claim as our own, I This provision in section 170CE(5D) is so would like to finish my contribution by quot- wide that virtually anything goes. An em- ing him. It was Deakin as Attorney-General ployer can terminate an employee for so- who introduced the Conciliation and Arbitra- called ‘operational reasons’ and it will be tion Bill. He said: justified. The only recourse people will have We have trusted for centuries to the various tribu- is if they believe they have grounds for nals erected for the administration of civil justice, unlawful dismissal. Unlawful dismissal cases and I hope that we shall begin from this day forth can take up to 18 months and require expen- to trust to these courts for industrial justice. sive legal representation that can run up to This government is destroying 100 years of thousands of dollars in the Federal or Su- industrial relations history. (Time expired) preme Court, depending on what law it is to be tested under. Mr WAKELIN (Grey) (10.30 am)—The history of workplace relations is as old as There are problems with the existing un- Australia. When I first came into this place— fair dismissal procedures. As the daughter of and before that—the exchanges between a small businessman who has now retired, I those of us in the export industry, the Labor have much sympathy for the plight of small Party and those who believe in the CPI businesspeople and the stress they are under. economy were long and almost impossible to But let us fix those procedures. Let us not reconcile. Let us think about the issues of remove the right of 99 per cent of the work- wide combs and live sheep, and the ports— place to unfair dismissal laws. Let us work to the things that build Australia’s economy. remove vexatious claims from the system The great problem we had was trying to get and be more sympathetic to the needs of many Australians to understand that you small business. These provisions do not could only pay wages which the country make businesses immune from legal actions could afford. That is one of the great virtues or their associated costs. If that is the only of the current government. We base our recourse open to people, it is more likely and wages on productivity increases and our ca- not less likely that, under these laws, they pacity to export competitively. will take such action. The Work Choices bill also fundamentally attacks the no disadvan- As a former shearer, I understand how tage test, but I do not have time in this debate hard it is to shear a sheep. I would like to to go into all of that. record in Hansard, for the purpose of the debate in the House this morning, the story

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 25 of an acquaintance of mine—a political op- of living, giving everyone the opportunity to ponent from the AWU—now deceased, one have a job and remembering that there are Trevor Girdham from Port Pirie. We were many more points of view than the one pre- having the normal exchanges, with me as a sented by the ACTU and the Labor Party. new politician, about my virtues or lack The basis of our society is the ability to run a thereof. He was predominantly representing business, to be able to export and to be able the Labor Party point of view. I put a chal- to create innovation in the workplace. The lenge to him in the local paper that I would workplace is the best place for the relation- take him on in any shearing shed anywhere ship between the employer and the employee in this country any time. He responded with to be worked out. That is the basis of this a little humour. He said that he would not do legislation. that, because he did not want to do too much The word ‘extreme’ has been used a lot in damage to the sheep. That brings out the the last few days. I offer the view that there point that Labor has moved very far from its is a lot of extreme rhetoric around this issue. roots. The days of the 1930s are well behind An example is that a boss is somehow going us. to intimidate the worker—that is all the em- A fellow by the name of Clyde Cameron, ployer does when he goes to work. He has a former Labor minister, tells a wonderful nothing better to do with his time than in- story in his autobiography about the first timidate potential or current employees. Let sheep he shore. He said he took so long that us talk a little about intimidation, about the the sheep actually died on the floor. As MUA and about what happened in that dis- smoko came and as the bell went after the pute. Let us talk about shearing sheds being last catch, he thought he would get the sheep burnt down. Let us talk about the wide outside into the let-out pen and prop it up combs. As a shearer, I assure the House that I with a stick so that the boss would have to much prefer to shear with a wide comb than count it out. That is the type of humour that I a narrow comb. It makes me more money really enjoy from that era. The Labor Party and it does just as good a job. To stop using has moved a long way from the basis of the wide combs was just stupid. union movement. Let us talk a little about the export of live Next Tuesday there will be a rally outside sheep. That market wanted those live sheep. my office in Whyalla, sponsored by the What right did the union movement have to ACTU. Apparently, they have six complaints stop me from having the right to trade freely about unfair dismissal, alleged cuts to wages within my occupation in order to make a liv- and conditions, changes to minimum wages, ing? I am talking about intimidation and the the abolition of the awards system, keeping right of people to make a living. Let us look unions out of workplaces and the restriction at Olympic Dam and the Labor Party. The on the power of the Australian Industrial Re- one man who allowed Olympic Dam to be- lations Commission. These are well-travelled come one of the biggest mines in the world, routes. Everybody knows the argument; it on the principle of never stopping anyone has been repeated here ad nauseam in recent from having a job, was Norman Foster from days, and no doubt that will continue to be the ALP. There are a whole lot of double the case. standards in this. If Australia is to reach its The thing that is totally missed in this de- potential and we are to allow every individ- bate is that it is about improving our standard ual Australian to make the most of their opportunities, the Workplace Relations

CHAMBER 26 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 we good advocacy. It is a legitimate position to are now debating needs to go through. argue for their rights and their position in the I want to talk a little about arrogance— economy in Australia. But I know all of us in that word is coming up pretty regularly. I this place would not be here if we relied on believe there are various forms of arrogance 17 per cent. We know that. There is some- and arrogance can also lead to poverty. Arro- thing fundamentally flawed in our system gance is a presumption that your own belief when the movement that portrays itself as the is right, to the exclusion of all others. That representative of the working people of Aus- can lead to poverty. From 1974 to the late tralia can only get 17 per cent of the work eighties and early nineties we saw our unem- force to join. I am not anti union. I am pro ployment rate go from 100,000 people—and union. I have been a member of unions. I the Labor minister of the day said he would believe in collective efforts for the wellbeing resign when unemployment reached of particular community groups and for the 100,000, but I do not think he did—to one nation at large. But I cannot accept from my million people. We will hear often in the de- life’s experience that the issues that the La- bate—the minister has mentioned it a lot— bor Party and the ACTU have thrown at me that the one thing you can offer an individual during my working life are acceptable. This that will give them the best chance in life is a country is based on the sort of economy we job. That first job someone gets is as impor- are running now, and there is no way I want tant as any job they will ever have—and per- to see that put under threat. I want to see haps it is the most important job they will more people in the work force rather than ever have. This is what I am fighting for in fewer. this place. It is what I believe in. I know it is Mr HAYES (Werriwa) (10.41 am)—I am not what the Labor Party believe in, but they absolutely opposed to the Workplace Rela- must respect that there are other points of tions Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005. view. That is why I think Tony Blair has Any member of this place who genuinely been successful in the UK: because he has supports working Australians from all walks been able to accept other points of view. It is of life, from all industries and occupations, not as if this nation’s economy is in such a and any member who genuinely supports bad way. This nation’s economy is the envy Australian families must oppose this bill. of the world. The argument goes, ‘If that is This is a bill that hardworking Australians the case, why do you want to bring in this who understand what the government’s real legislation?’ The answer is because we want agenda is have been waiting for with a mix- to make sure this country maintains its posi- ture of fear and concern. They have nerv- tion in the world and goes on to have an even ously awaited this bill because the govern- better outcome for its people and to take its ment has now detailed its plans while hiding place in the world. behind the sweeping statements of what must To conclude, the union movement have a be considered probably the largest advertis- great problem and that reflects a great prob- ing campaign in this country’s history—at lem for the Labor Party. With union mem- least for a government. They have been bership in the private enterprise work force dreading the day, ever since 26 May, because standing at 17 per cent, surely the ACTU and they knew that what the government was the union movement must ask themselves, intending to do was turn Australian work- ‘How do we get our membership up?’ Be- places on their heads. Australian people cause there is no doubt that employees need knew it would mean for them that their rela-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 27 tive bargaining power on the job was about while reductions in the minimum wage mean to be slashed. that the unit cost of labour will continue to Now they have the details, and I have to fall. They may not admit it—I note they have say that they are worse than expected. With not admitted it so far—but make no mistake: more than 1,200 pages of the bill and ex- these are the objects of this bill. planatory notes tabled 24 hours before the I do not come to this debate without some commencement of this debate, nobody has experience in industrial relations. The gov- had a realistic opportunity to consider its ernment often cites the fact that, among the complexities. Nor will they get the opportu- ranks of the opposition, there are a number nity to have their say on the bill through a of members who were once trade union offi- proper Senate inquiry, because the govern- cials. I am one of them. I also operated a ment has decided to ram it through the par- business that assisted employers and em- liament before Christmas, skipping any sort ployees negotiate with a view to reaching of due process and proper scrutiny. What a mutually acceptable outcomes. I understand great Christmas present that is going to make both sides of the employment relationship. I for many Australian families! doubt any members of the government can On top of the advertisements they have al- make such a claim. ready paid for, working Australians and their I spent many years representing the inter- families will have the rug pulled out from ests of working men and women, negotiating under them and they will have the shadow of on their behalf and appearing before various uncertainty cast upon them. Members oppo- state and Commonwealth industrial tribunals. site have invariably trotted out their horror As a union official I honestly believe that I stories of how unions have allegedly inter- played a significant role in assisting various fered with business in their electorate and Australian businesses address both domestic their stories of how no employer they know and international competitiveness while de- would ever take advantage of these laws. We livering job security and better pay and con- have heard and will continue to hear that ditions for their employees. That is what un- these reforms are necessary, to secure Aus- ions do. The union movement understands tralia’s ongoing prosperity, to secure higher that a business needs to operate, because wages and to create more jobs in the future. I they create the jobs for its members. How- say to those members opposite: do not be- ever, what a union does object to is their lieve your own propaganda. members being exploited. I doubt very much that the government Any captain of industry will tell you that will be so bold as to admit that its true there is always going to be a certain level of agenda is to create a system governing em- workplace dispute. That is inevitable, given ployment relationships that will place the the different drivers, needs and outlooks be- majority of power overwhelmingly in the tween those running businesses and those hands of employers, while seeking to under- who work for the enterprise solely to provide cut the functioning system for establishing for a family. A businessman reports to his wages and conditions. I doubt the govern- shareholders and his financiers, while a ment will be so bold as to ever admit that worker’s economic responsibility is to his or this bill is aimed at destroying the union her family. Therefore, industrial relations is movement and making sure that the profit more than just another economic model. It share of the national income continues to rise must be responsive to the everyday needs

CHAMBER 28 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 and preoccupations of people. Workers are elements of production but as providers for more than just a resource, more than just families. A standard was set and a system another business input. They are people and was founded on the key principles of fair- they are members of our community. ness, decency, equity and social justice. Our industrial laws were established to The bill before us today wipes all of those temper the excesses of different views, principles away and replaces them with an- brought together through employment rela- other set of principles that encourage divi- tionships so that the differences could be sion, deceit, manipulation and exploitation. I resolved quickly and cooperatively. The par- cannot help but think that the Prime Minister, ties had access to an independent umpire, fuelled by a desire to be all things American, who had power to assist in the resolution of will now go on to encourage us to take disputes based on the principles of fairness phrases like ‘let’s kick some butt’ or ‘break and equity. This bill throws all that out in some heads’—or his favourite, possibly: favour of introducing market forces into em- ‘you’re fired’—straight from the Hollywood ployment relationships. scripts and into Australian workplaces. This My experience from a long-term and di- sort of attitude is certainly not the attitude rect involvement in the field gives me a that encourages the great Australian tradition unique insight into the interaction and inter- of mateship that the Prime Minister claims play between those on both sides of the em- he so admires. It will no longer be a case of ployment equation. I know for a fact that the looking after your workmate; it will be a changes we have before us today will not case of out-negotiating your mate. Nice guys make Australia a better place and will not will finish last in a world where workers will create the great economic utopia that this be faced with the employer’s way or the government claims they will. highway. ‘Work Choices’ simply means no choice for working Australians. Despite the claims of the government, and the $55 million already splashed out on ad- I am not sure that Australian workers and vertising, the reason the government is em- their families will have the same love affair barking on this so-called article of faith is with the American culture when they under- not to produce a fairer or better industrial stand what it is like to work for tips. The relations system; it is about realising a United States may have their George W, but dream. It is to realise a dream that has been let me assure you that we very much have around since HR Nicholls himself: the dream our very own John W, who is clearly just as of ridding the workplace of social justice. destructive and just as divisive. For more than a century we have had an But of course the Labor Party and the un- industrial relations system that has treated ions are not the only ones who have been people as more than a mere unit of produc- critical of the government’s agenda when it tion, and rightly so. Justice Higgins, in the comes to industrial relations. The long delay Harvester case in 1907, determined the since the changes were floated in May has minimum wage for Australian workers led to many community leaders and repre- would be based on a person’s ability to pro- sentatives expressing their concerns about vide a reasonable standard of living for him- the changes. Cardinal George Pell, shepherd self and his family. Our system then estab- to Australia’s five million Catholics, has ex- lished a sound guiding principle: it would pressed his deep concerns, saying: consider the value of people not simply as

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 29

Some of these trans-national corporations are Constitution. The appropriateness of this very, very powerful indeed and l think we need approach matters little—the government is strong and effective and humane and altruistic concerned with only one thing: the result. unions to continue a dialogue with these people. I Nothing will get in the way of the conserva- am certainly not supportive of a radical rethink of tive dream. the unions. I think that’s gone far enough; you might even argue it’s gone a bit too far. In my first speech in this place, I said I The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Pe- had grave concerns that this government’s ter Jensen, has also contributed. He said: industrial relations agenda would go beyond the intended goal of weakening the trade It seems at this point that the proposals shift the union movement. I have been involved in differential of power in favour of employers, who can have a propensity to mistreat workers in the industrial relations from all perspectives, interests of business. including being a member of an industrial tribunal, and I believe that these changes will Reverend Dr Dean Drayton, of the Uniting Church, commented: profoundly weaken the position of individual workers in relation to their employers. Does Workers are not commodities in the service of the government seriously think that people greater profits—they are people trying to make a will believe that, by stripping the power of decent life for themselves and their families. the industrial umpire and forcing workers to These community leaders are concerned go head to head with their bosses, wages will about the government’s view that the only be higher, working conditions better and life means by which we can compete is by cut- generally will improve? ting Australian wages to levels on par with those of China, India and Indonesia. The According to the government’s rose- community leaders understand the impact coloured-glasses view of the world, altruism that that will have on society, families and alone will cause employers, businesses, in- individuals. When church leaders outlined ternational corporations and indeed corporate their concern, how did the Prime Minister raiders to treat employees fairly and equita- respond? Did he allay their concerns by bly in a balanced employment relationship. guaranteeing that no-one will be worse off? Clearly this must be the case, because the No. He simply responded by saying that government is exempting near on 98 per cent churches do not have a monopoly on moral of businesses from the application of the un- thought—an example of the extreme, arro- fair dismissal laws. The government is giv- gant and out-of-touch attitude of this Prime ing power to sack at will and it seriously be- Minister and his government, which is re- lieves that no-one will abuse it! How stupid flected in this bill. does the government think people are? The most interesting thing about this bill I wonder whether the same companies is that it uses the corporations power of the should also be exempted from the ACCC Commonwealth to introduce uniform laws in oversight and from other forms of corporate all the states. The collective wisdom of mul- policing because they are such good corpo- tiple law firms—and thousands upon thou- rate citizens. I wonder too whether the ac- sands of billable hours—has been used to tions of companies that have already been draft legislation. The government has gone to subject to criticism by the courts for acting great lengths to find loopholes to allow it to harshly, unjustly and unconscionably, as well achieve its objective, which is to gazump the as exploiting and taking unfair advantage of industrial relations powers of the Australian the young, low paid and largely unrepre-

CHAMBER 30 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 sented workers, will also receive this gov- ter. The requirement to bargain in good faith ernment’s tick of approval. If employees no has been removed and collective bargaining longer need protection because businesses will be at the discretion of the employer. As a have proved they can be trusted so abso- consequence, you can be forced onto an in- lutely, surely the government can dispense dividual contract. The no disadvantage test with the services of Graeme Samuel and his has been removed. You will be worse off. team of corporate regulators. I think not. The provisions of the bill also mean that, The government believes that curtailing on the expiry of an agreement, everything the excesses of the corporate world in some automatically defaults to the five minimum business dealings is necessary but that there conditions. This means people will always be is no need to curb their excesses when it negotiating from the minimum just to keep comes to their dealings with employees. In the wages and conditions they already enjoy. fact, this government encourages it. Let us This is not reform; this is a weapon of mass consider some of the provisions of the bill destruction aimed at working Australians and and see exactly what is in store for working their families. But the most arrogant thing Australians. Under proposed section 7J, fair- that the government has done is to flatly re- ness will no longer be considered in the fuse to give a commitment to working Aus- wage-setting process of the Fair Pay Com- tralians that nobody will be worse off. It sur- mission. Under proposed section 91C, the prises me that the Prime Minister is so reluc- 38-hour week will be retained but can be tant to give this guarantee, because the averaged over 12 months. Hence, overtime member for Macarthur certainly has not will effectively be obsolete. Under proposed been. An article entitled ‘Workers will not section 96D, employers will be able to make suffer, MP says’, which appeared in the their own greenfields agreements, unilater- Macarthur Chronicle on 6 September this ally setting the terms and conditions of a site. year, said: Hence, any chance of negotiation is gone. ... every worker in the Macarthur area will be Under proposed section 104(6), duress does better off in a federal industrial system Macarthur not apply when an employee is required to Federal Liberal MP Pat Farmer has promised. enter into an AWA—that is, you will be If the member for Macarthur is so willing to forced to enter into an individual contract. promise that his constituents will not be Under proposed section 112, the minister worse off, why won’t the Prime Minister? can terminate a bargaining period at the The Prime Minister will not do it because he stroke of a pen. Fighting for your rights will knows that it is simply not true. The Prime be denied. Under proposed section 170CEE, Minister has ducked and weaved for months employees can be excluded from the remain- when confronted with this question and has ing unfair dismissal provisions if the dis- continually cited his record as his guarantee. missal is for operational reasons. Hence, no- I can assure the Prime Minister that the peo- body will be protected from unfair dismissal. ple of south-west Sydney know his record Under proposed section 100A, regardless of when it comes to looking after their interests whether there is a collective agreement in and consider it to be cold comfort when it place, an employer is free to pursue individ- comes to the future of their wages and work- ual contracts with employees. Under pro- ing conditions. posed section 99B, there will be no scrutiny There is no doubt that Australia has to of AWAs except for prohibited content, continue the process of reform to build on its which is yet to be determined by this minis-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 31 successes, but the narrowness of this gov- ferent workplace relations systems. Surely in ernment’s productivity agenda is astounding. this day and age we can come up with some- Previous Labor governments have shown thing better than this—and we have, in the that you do not need to attack unions or hold Workplace Relations Amendment (Work the threat of dismissal over workers’ heads to Choices) Bill 2005. A nation cannot move achieve economic success and productivity forward when its work force and its economy gains. Australia needs an industrial relations are shackled by an overly complicated IR system that is based on fairness and the fun- system and a dispute based conciliation damental principles that provide for a proper process. safety net of minimum conditions, an inde- Do not get me wrong—I believe unions pendent umpire, the right to associate, the have their place and I recognise the valuable right to collectively bargain, the right to re- role they have played and can play in a project individual contracts which cut pay and ductive workplace. Unions have delivered conditions, and protection from exploitation better working conditions for millions of and unfair dismissal. This bill is poles apart Australians who needed higher pay, better from this goal. No matter how much money working conditions and a more equal rela- the government spends on advertising, the tionship with employers. However, the rele- Australian public will not believe that they vance of unions has dwindled to the point are better off being forced to be pitted where only 17 per cent of private sector em- against their boss to negotiate the terms of ployees are now union members. one of the most significant relationships they Another indicator is the fact that workers are involved in. on AWAs at present earn on average 13 per In concluding my comments today I con- cent more than those on collective agree- gratulate the ACTU and Unions NSW for ments and 100 per cent more than those on their efforts to bring to the attention of the awards. Why should anyone sign up to a community the true nature of the govern- lesser collective agreement or award to re- ment’s agenda. I would also like to acknowl- ceive less money or fewer benefits? Obvi- edge the efforts of the members of Unions ously, modern-day workers are finding un- Macarthur. I make the commitment to every ions irrelevant and unable to provide the ser- police officer, teacher, nurse, ambulance of- vices they want. ficer, fire fighter, factory worker, shop assis- Sadly, it would seem that all the unions tant, hairdresser, dental nurse, office worker, and opposition can offer in this debate is a child-care worker, bricklayer, builder, elec- fear campaign. We have seen claims of trician, plumber, hospitality worker—in fact, mothers being sacked for being unable to every worker in my electorate—that I will work and bosses intimidating workers into continue to fight against these changes and signing AWAs. Over the last two days we will continue to stand up for their rights at have also seen the opposition ridicule the work. I support Labor’s amendment, and I notion of employees using accountants to absolutely oppose this bill. Members oppo- negotiate an AWA with their employees. But site who really believe in fairness, decency a bargaining agent can be anyone: it could be and family values must also oppose this bill. an accountant, a business planner, a retired Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler) (11.01 am)— solicitor, a family member and, yes, a union Our IR system is archaic, with more than 130 advocate. Let me make this point: if unions different pieces of employment related legis- were truly doing their job, they would be lation, more than 4,000 awards and six dif-

CHAMBER 32 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 preparing a team of young, enthusiastic ad- are not removing awards under these vocates to accompany workers to the bar- changes; we are simplifying them and regaining table. Instead of whipping up a fear moving ridiculous provisions such as the one campaign, the unions should adapt their ser- in the New South Wales Pastoral Employees vices and expertise to benefit Australian (State) Award which stipulates: workers who choose to enter an AWA. (a) Where the shearing shed is within 229 me- The ALP also claims that the government tres’ walking distance from the kitchen, wants to slash wages to make Australia more smoke-oh lunches are to be held in the shed competitive. Having done a little research on except: this, it is easy to point out that this is a scare (i) where an offsider is employed; or tactic. The Union Bank of Switzerland’s (ii) in the case of a cook of a mess of ten price and earnings comparison of gross and men or less. net hourly rates of pay in US dollars of major Another furphy Labor is peddling is the line cities around the world shows that, across an that, under this new system, pensions will average of 13 occupations, workers in Syd- fall. That cannot happen, because the coali- ney take home a net hourly pay of $US7.80 tion was the first government to peg pension an hour. The same study showed that work- payments to both CPI and at least 25 per cent ers in Taipei received $US6.90 net an hour of male total average weekly earnings. That and workers in Tokyo, at $US13.60, took was done because, in this time of low infla- home almost double the Australian rate. In tion, it gave pensioners the chance to stay in other words, we are certainly not in a state of touch with workers in the marketplace. In forcing down pay—there are other countries fact, since March 1996, single and partnered around the world with which we compete pensions have increased by 40 per cent. This that have higher pays. Another set of figures means that single pensions have increased by from this year’s IMD World Competitiveness over $50 per fortnight and partnered pen- Yearbook shows that in terms of total hourly sions by over $43 per fortnight, each more compensation for manufacturing workers than they would have under the previous Australia is almost level pegging with Japan Labor system, largely because of MTAWE. I and the USA. So the fear that wages will be find it absolutely extraordinary that Labor is slashed to remain competitive is unfounded. trotting out MTAWE and trying to make The opposition has said that it will rein- people feel that, because MTAWE might go state awards. I find that extraordinary. As I down a bit, their pensions will drop, when move around the electorate and talk to indi- Labor did not even have a MTAWE factor in vidual unionists and even union groups, no- its pension profile. That is just rank hypoc- one seems concerned about awards; they are risy. more concerned about their EBAs. Most ac- The process of the AIRC is inherently knowledge that their enterprise agreements complicated. A broad snapshot of its core are far better than anything awards can offer. activities makes your head spin. For exam- Under the new regime, there is no reason ple, the AIRC facilitates agreements, pre- why that cannot continue. That is why I find vents and settles industrial disputes, hears it bewildering that there is such concern and determines unfair dismissal applications, about and fear of AWAs. and hears and determines matters involving On top of these half-truths, a Labor gov- the registration and coverage of unions and ernment would roll back these changes. We employer organisations. If that were not bad enough, more than half-a-dozen bodies are

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 33 regulating industrial relations at the federal they are holding back employment, growth and level. These are the AIRC, the Australian retaining people’s standard of living, especially in Industrial Registry, the High Court and fed- the small business sector. eral courts of Australia, DEWR, the Office of Another businessman related a horrific story the Employment Advocate, the state indus- to me of an unfair dismissal case. A young trial relations tribunal and so on. man was doing some fairly ugly things at This mishmash of regulation creates work, including accessing pornography on enormous cost to employers and employees work computers and so on. They had a talk, alike but, contrary to union claims, the gov- and the young man decided to resign and got ernment is not seeking to abolish the AIRC a very generous 14-week severance pay but, and its key responsibilities. Rather, these a month later, he came back, claiming reforms will modify the organisation’s role to $30,000. The matter came before the Queen- keep pace with the needs of a modern econ- sland Industrial Relations Commission and omy. Under the new system, the AIRC will then escalated, would you believe, to the focus on its key responsibility—dispute reso- antidiscrimination board on the grounds that lution—while retaining its role in simplify- he was a mentally disturbed person. The ing and rationalising awards and regulating claim then went from $30,000 to $190,000. industrial action, the right of entry, unfair The court hearing was set up for three days dismissal and registered organisations. The but lasted only two hours, with the claimant AIRC will not be able to exercise compul- admitting that the evidence he had given was sory powers of conciliation and arbitration. fabricated and that the employer’s evidence Rather, it will provide voluntary dispute was accurate. What happened next? The resolution services and maintain its role in claimant was broke and so only had to pay providing an initial conciliation service. the punitive penalty of $5,000 while the ex- employer had to foot a bill of $53,000. One of the most aggravating problems facing small business today is that of unfair I would like to go on a lot more about this, dismissal. In my experience, existing laws but we have an agreement with the opposi- actually discourage small business from tak- tion that we on our side will restrict our ing on new or permanent employees. I find comments to 10 minutes. I think the Work- this particularly so in the city of Gladstone in place Relations Amendment (Work Choices) my electorate. Many different employers and Bill 2005 is a good bill. I do not mind saying business groups have echoed the same con- that I had some misgivings with some parts cerns from a national perspective, but I have of it, which I made clear to people. I think it also received grassroots feedback from small will improve the marketplace. I hope it will businesses who welcome these reforms. One be the start of a new generation of unions, Gladstone businessman who through his line and I think AWAs will give people many of work has union membership had this to more choices in the marketplace but not at say in a letter to his union: the expense of their EBAs and their awards. What you are fighting is the only answer to small Mr WINDSOR (New England) (11.12 business employment problems, in particular un- am)—I am pleased to be able to speak to the fair dismissal and employment agreements ... I Workplace Relations Amendment (Work continue to work my guts out on my own and will Choices) Bill 2005. I will relate some of my never put on any staff as long as the current laws comments to people within the electorate. I exist. Anyone who supports the existing IR laws have conducted a survey of constituents’ which restrict all business should also realize that views on this piece of legislation. Before

CHAMBER 34 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 doing so, I would like to explain to the era. After that period, the Commonwealth House a bit of my history on these sorts of government also did some work on the issues issues. As you would know, Mr Deputy of enterprise bargaining and Australian Speaker Scott, in 1991 I was selected to the workplace agreements. New South Wales parliament and my vote I come to the Workplace Relations was the one that put the conservative coali- Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 with tion government into power in New South that background. I have never been a mem- Wales. It was a hung parliament. ber of a union, but I have been supportive of Mr Billson interjecting— unions. I listened earlier to the member for Mr WINDSOR—I did not hear the inter- Grey when he talked about his shearing his- jection, but I am sure it was a good one. One tory, the fact that he had been a member of a of the issues I raised and supported in my union and the rights of people to gather col- first speech in state parliament was that of lectively, whether in the workplace or as industrial relations. The other issue was community groups, to try to push their par- about incentive based taxation systems. I ticular agendas. I would agree with that, but I referred to the federal government on both have to say that I have really struggled with those issues at the time. John Fahey was the this particular piece of legislation. Given my then Minister for Industrial Relations in New background and the attitude that I have had South Wales. He became Premier on the rein the past towards industrial relations, one moval of Nick Greiner and subsequently of the things that I have done to try to recon- came to this place. cile views is to survey my electorate. But it was my vote that actually got the IR One thing that the government has quite legislation through the New South Wales rightly recognised is that as we enter a global parliament. I remember that particular time, society, as we become players in the global because the nature of the parliament—being community, our living standard is above our a hung parliament—and the nature of the productive capacity. The government may or decision-making process meant that the out- may not like to say that, but I think the issue come was based solely on my shoulders. It that is really at the heart of this is how we was a fairly difficult time in terms of the vit- maintain a living standard when we are mov- riol and the views that were being imposed ing into a global society where our wage and from all directions—to do this and not to do salary rates are much higher than our produc- that. I decided at the time, partly because I tive capacity and much higher than those of was involved in various farm organisations, many of our competitors. The government is to support the New South Wales legislation. I suggesting that, if we move to a different had been supportive of the Mudginberri de- system, that will increase productivity and cision in the 1980s and I had followed the employment rates and hence we will main- now Treasurer’s movements in relation to the tain our position in the world in terms of our Dollar Sweets case and a number of those living standard. issues. I was also very much involved—at a I do not believe that is entirely true, and I low level, I admit—in trying to push the is- do not think we should be solely focused on sues of free trade and productivity. The New the so-called productivity improvements that South Wales legislation was mainly based on the Treasurer and others suggest will flow. I enterprise agreements and the removal of am a little dismayed that the Treasury and some restrictions in relation to unions et cet- the government have not done any analyses

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 35 on the impact of this legislation on the real will not do anything about it at home be- numbers—those of productivity and em- cause that would be interfering in the market. ployment rates. There is an argument put that I think that is an extraordinary thing to say, improvements will naturally follow. I do not particularly in the energy field, where we think that is necessarily the case. I think have such very high and inefficient taxation there are many other things that we probably regimes in terms of fuel excise. should focus on before focusing solely on The taxation system is another area where wages and the way in which wages are de- I think the government could have much termined as being the parameter that will more say on increasing productivity— keep us in the game. incentive based packages and those sorts of The Prime Minister, to his credit, has ini- things. There is very little mention of that in tiated an inquiry into red tape. I think there is the 1,200 pages of the document before the an enormous capacity there to influence the House at the moment. The price of housing productive capacity of our productive indus- has been partly driven by government incen- tries. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you and I tives. That may be all very well for those both come from regional areas where one of individuals who are sharing in that escalation the great problems over the years has been in the price of houses, but it is not doing any- that we have had an artificial cost structure at thing for the capacity of the generation to home and a corrupt price structure overseas. follow to enter that marketplace. Trying to weave our way through those two We have a relatively low population and parameters and maintain a productive exis- we have now got an extraordinary situation tence has been, at the very least, difficult. where, because of an artificial domestic pric- But the government has initiated a red ing structure in terms of accommodation, a tape inquiry. I noticed the other day—and I lot of younger couples are finding that both think it came from the Productivity Commis- partners have to work—and they are still sion—that one of the greatest noncompliers struggling to meet mortgage commitments. I in terms of efficiency is the Treasury itself. I have mentioned fuel, but infrastructure is would suggest that before embarking upon another area where government could do a this specific industrial relations agenda we lot to provide the mainstay and mechanism should be looking at a whole range of other for productive investment and the umbrella things—red tape being one and renewable under which a lot of productive investment energy being another. If we are serious about could take place. Compliance costs and red trying to maintain a living standard within a tape are also issues. global community, surely we have to look at In the telecommunications area we seem the things we can do at home and how we to be in reverse gear. Our productive sector can do them effectively. in regional Australia is going to be deliber- Mr Deputy Speaker, I know I sound like a ately disadvantaged by moves to privatise cracked record on ethanol and I know you operations. We see the debate going on now are a greater supporter of ethanol, but it is a between the ACCC and Donald McGauchie, classic example—not the only one—where the Chairman of Telstra. The Prime Minister we can cut that corner that we are locked has consistently refused to identify where the into, that agenda where we export grain at mythical agreement is that the National corrupt world prices and use some of that Farmers Federation are supposed to have put money to buy oil at corrupt world prices but in place to guarantee parity of pricing for

CHAMBER 36 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 broadband and telephone services. It is ap- ment to excise the unfair dismissal compo- parently in some speech someone made in nent from the legislation and have it debated the Senate one day that has no bearing on the separately, but I am told that is very difficult legislation and is not in the legislation at all. to do, so I will be moving an amendment that The member for Gwydir and I have been the number of employees in a business cov- in conflict on a number of issues, but on the ered by the legislation be reduced to the issue of the National Water Initiative I agree original government proposal of 20. Busi- with him. I think the National Water Initia- nesses of that size are, essentially, family tive is at risk of collapse. To have put in owned small businesses which should be place a structure that is allowing state gov- treated differently from the bigger corpora- ernments at the moment to look at charging tions in the industrial relations system. I will regimes in the high band of the COAG be moving that amendment. As I have said, I agreement seems to me to be one of the most have always supported legislation on unfair unproductive moves that any government dismissal for businesses employing up to 20 could make. But the bureaucracy has been people. allowed to move on this particular piece of The government has sent a very nasty sig- red tape because the original agreement, nal of uncertainty to the community by in- through the COAG process and the National creasing the scope of the legislation from Water Initiative process, allows the bureauc- businesses with 20 employees to businesses racy that freedom. The member for Gwydir with 100 employees. There was no mandate made the point on ABC regional radio the at the last election to do that. There was a other day that we have to make a very strong definite mandate that a business with 20 em- challenge to those bureaucrats who are driv- ployees was a small business—family owned ing that agenda. This debate is about produc- and operated and face-to-face, where em- tivity, and in one fell swoop one of the most ployers needed rights to dismiss people that productive groups in regional Australia—the were different to the rights needed by larger irrigating community, which is one of the corporations. Some people in the farm sector very few groups in regional Australia which have expressed some concern about the Cor- is reasonably profitable—is going to be dis- porations Act being used. Even though they advantaged. Hence our capacity to influence have been given five years to adapt to the overseas markets et cetera will also be disad- process, the process of moving to becoming vantaged. companies does create some concerns, which I have always supported unfair dismissal people are looking at. legislation in this parliament. I think it is My survey has been difficult to put to- among the top five issues that I have spoken gether because of the rush of the legislation, on during my participation in this place. One but in the last five days—and some people of the few things that the business commu- are still only receiving the survey—I have nity has come to see me about in recent had a response from 2,200 of my constitu- years—that is, since there has been relatively ents. Out of those 2,200 people, 77 per cent quiet disputation between the union move- have said they are opposed to the legislation, ment and the employer organisations—has 20 per cent of people have said they are in been unfair dismissal. As I have said, I have favour of the legislation and three per cent of supported unfair dismissal legislation, but I people are undecided. Over the last few will be moving an amendment to the legisla- months—bearing in mind that the legislation tion. I was attempting to move an amend- has only been in the parliament for a week

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 37 and a lot of people would have been shad- disadvantage for our community, in both an owboxing with various propaganda cam- economic and a social sense. That disadvan- paigns that were going on—my office has tage will be the division that it creates within received more than 1,300 letters about this our community. For a little over a decade we issue. Well over 90 per cent of those letters have moved into enterprise bargaining and a have been in opposition to the legislation. whole range of other areas where Labor and The major concern from the business Liberal have been essentially in agreement. community in my electorate is unfair dis- We have had very little disputation in indus- missal. I think the fact that the government trial relations. The major motivation behind has put that issue into this omnibus legisla- this legislation has very little to do with pro- tion, grouping it together with a whole range ductivity. The academic arguments and the of other things, such as the Fair Pay Com- opinions that are being put up agree—there mission, the role of the Industrial Relations is no proof that this legislation will improve Commission, the rights of weaker bargainers, productivity. One would hope that it will, the abandonment of the no disadvantage test because it is going to go through the parlia- and the ministerial power to override agreement, but there is no proof that it will. ments at the stroke of a pen, is a concern. There is no proof that countries that have That new ministerial power—irrespective of less regulation in the labour market have the legislation—is something that we should better living standards. The Prime Minister be dreadfully concerned about. The ethic has used the argument that there is some behind this legislation was supposedly that academic opinion to that effect. An article in people would have a choice—that the worker today’s Canberra Times by Peter Browne is and the boss could make an agreement and well worth reading in relation to that. It dis- decide in their own time about their own cusses the OECD employment rate index and business. But now you have this capacity for the job protection index. I do not have the the minister to suddenly come in and over- article with me, so I cannot cite the exact ride any agreement. figures, but of the six best performing coun- I have the greatest personal respect and tries in terms of employment and living stan- regard for the current minister, but legislation dards only one has less regulation—and the does not stay with the minister in the chair. I United States performs quite badly, in fact. am certain that the minister in the chair In the time that remains to me, I would would not abuse that process, but that does like to read a couple of comments made to not mean that, with a change of government me by people in my electorate. One of my or a change of minister, abuse could not constituents says: sneak into the process. That sends a message The group of people on the minimum wage will of uncertainty to the community as well, be the worst affected by this government’s quest about why that would be there. If it is not for to support big business and Australia’s wealthiest a negative reason, why is it there? What is people. The rich get richer and the poor get the the positive aspect of having a Work Choices picture. process where the minister can come in and A constituent who was for the changes said: overrule something? That is not deregula- I believe that, if an employee is found to be un- tion—it is re-regulation. suitable for a particular job or incompetent in My major concern is that this legislation, carrying out the task at hand, an employer should although it has some benefits, has a major be able to terminate his or her employment. Un-

CHAMBER 38 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 fair dismissal laws were a disgrace and need sounds rather like David Lloyd George at the changing. end of World War I talking about squeezing I oppose the legislation. (Time expired) the German lemon. Unfortunately, if Labor Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (11.33 am)—I ever got into power, the economy would be was staggered to hear complaints by the somewhat of a lemon. member for Ballarat about the government The industrial relations system is not per- limiting debate on the Workplace Relations fect. Look at the effects of Labor’s legacy, Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005. A where we have had very regulated environ- friend of mine once said with regard to in- ments and poor economic performance. If we creasing your capability that some people do not continue a reform process with indus- say, ‘I have 20 years experience, when the trial relations, the industrial relations system reality is that they have one year of experi- will atrophy and result in a sclerotic econ- ence 20 times over. In this case, the debate omy. The only extreme that I can see as far consists of the same argument over and as this legislation is concerned is the extreme over again. The debate is not a real debate. scare campaign that has been run by the The same points are being made every time. ACTU. Labor has no real policy, and cer- The economy is the centrepiece of a na- tainly it does not have any heart or ability to tion’s wellbeing. That is an absolutely criti- reform. This is in contrast to the legacy of cal aspect that needs to be considered in this the Hawke and Keating governments, which argument. You can talk about social niceties were reformist governments—and, indeed, and protections and all sorts of other issues, many of their reforms were supported by the but if your economy is not performing all the then opposition. Labor at the moment almost protections in the world do not assist. Civil seems to be subscribing to the viewpoint of unrest is generally a result of poor economic Lyndon LaRouche of the CEC on econom- conditions. Unfortunately we are seeing ics: that we should return to the Bretton some of those effects in France at the mo- Woods type arrangements that were in place ment. I know it is not just an issue of poor from the 1940s to the 1970s—almost fixed economic conditions there, but France has 12 exchange rates and tariff barriers. per cent unemployment, despite a highly In stark contrast, the coalition government regulated economic and industrial relations is very much a reformist government, and environment. There are other social issues this reform has significantly benefited Aus- involved, but the economy is one of the cen- tralia. There have been no recessions ‘we had tral issues there. to have’ on this government’s watch. People Some people have asked: why do we need are paid 15 per cent more in real terms com- changes? I have said to them: your economic pared with when the Howard government position is essentially like being in a boat on took office. So much for the fear campaign a river. If you stop rowing, you do not stand of reduced living wages and reduced stan- still; you move backwards. Working on your dards et cetera. Unemployment is down to economy and economic performance is a five per cent, the lowest in 30 years. Interest continual process that you need to follow. rates are at historic lows. Inflation is under Labor’s position appears to be one of no re- control. This government is a very good eco- form at all. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposi- nomic manager. Part of that good economic tion has stated that the industrial relations management means that the population gen- issue has basically been squeezed dry. That erally is far better off, and that is not just the wealthy. Indeed, if you look at the data, it

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 39 indicates very clearly that these economic is about the abolition of safety nets; and it is benefits have flowed through to all Austra- about pushing down or abolishing minimum stan- lians, not just the wealthy, which is the posi- dards. As a worker, you may have lots of doubts tion put by Labor. about the things that you might lose, but you can be absolutely sure of one thing: John Howard will I have heard claims by some members op- reduce your living standards. posite that these changes are undemocratic, That was on 17 October 1995. Let us have a particularly given the fact that the majority look at those ‘reduced standards’ again. They of people contacting them are opposed to the are quite interesting: people getting 15 per legislation. Here is a little bit of a lesson for cent more in real terms, unemployment down the Labor Party: this nation is a representa- to five per cent, inflation under control—it tive democracy, not—and here I will invent a does not sound as scary as the member for new word—a populatocracy, where we basi- Perth was stating 10 years ago. cally legislate in terms of the popular sentiment of the day. I have heard a lot of com- In his speech, the member for Rankin ap- plaints about the media and media influence pears to blame IR reforms for petrol price on policy. Quite frankly, if we governed ac- increases—a staggering claim. Also, as with cording to popular opinion, that would result the member for Perth, he seems to claim that in the media essentially driving government our government wants to lower wages. Why policy, as media viewpoints, by and large, would any government want to reduce peo- are where the public generate their view- ple’s wellbeing? The member for Rankin points. states that there is a problem with a lack of necessity, in legislation, to bargain in good On the views of the opposition—and I faith and that this has been the case since have said this before—it is basically like that 1996. The fact that wages have gone up by Led Zeppelin song: The Song Remains The 15 per cent in real terms does not say much Same. For instance, at a doorstop interview for the ‘bargain in good faith’ legislation. on 23 May 2005, Stephen Smith said: After all, under Labor, with this ‘bargain in Firstly, these changes will be unfair, they will be good faith’ legislation, Labor only had divisive and they will be extreme. around a two per cent increase in wages in Secondly so far as the impact on Australian em- real terms over a period of 13 years. ployees and their families, they will have the effect of reducing their wages, stripping their enti- Why is this bill necessary? We need a na- tlements and removing their safety nets. tional system so that we can get rid of the ludicrous situation of multiple awards across … … … the states, where tradespeople from one state We also know that the Government’s proposing to cannot be gainfully employed in their trade take an axe to the Minimum Wage, to reduce the Minimum Wage. in another state. Unfair dismissal legislation may have had noble beginnings, but it has Thirdly, we know the Government is looking at been found to be a turkey. It is a disincentive reducing the number of Allowable Matters and stripping entitlements. to employ. Other members on our side have spoken about cases where unfair dismissal Sounds rather scary, doesn’t it? But let us claims have been brought and won at the have a look at what he said 10 years ago: tribunal—where people have won their cases The Howard model is quite simple. It is all despite the fact that the claims were ludi- about lower wages; it is about worse conditions; it crous. In fact, the issues of unfair dismissal is about a massive rise in industrial disputation; it

CHAMBER 40 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 are obviously clear to the opposition as well. (d) for creating an industrial relations sys- In 1998, the member for Hunter said: tem that is extreme, unfair and divisive; ... my wife consistently tells me she could afford … … … to put on one person or would like to put on one (h) for attacking the living standards of more person, but is fearful of unfair dismissals ... Australian employees and their families That pretty much says it all. by removing the ‘no disadvantage test’ from collective and individual agree- I could say a lot more on this legislation, ments; but I know that we are trying to be fair to the (i) by allowing employees to be forced onto opposition in allowing them their opportu- unfair Australian Workplace Agreements nity to debate, so I will just finish with one as a condition of employment; point. I have heard the trotting out of the (j) for abolishing annual wage increases viewpoints of individual economists in Aus- made by the Australian Industrial Rela- tralia, but there are organisations such as the tions Commission for workers under IMF—which is a very prestigious, very pow- Awards with the objective of reducing erful economic body—which state that fur- the Minimum Wage in real terms, and ther reforms are necessary. Indeed, the IMF by removing the requirement that fair- states that centralised awards set minimum ness be taken into account in the calcu- conditions in 20 areas, and large employers lation of the Minimum Wage; face six different industrial relations sys- … … … tems—this is for large companies. This is (l) for undermining family life by propos- from the IMF, not the government. I guess ing to give employers the power to that the opposition would say that the IMF is change employees’ work hours without in the Howard government’s pocket! The reasonable notice; OECD state that further unfinished business … … … includes the harmonisation of federal and (q) for denying Australian employees the state industrial relations. They further state: capacity to bargain collectively with The Government is now in a position to address their employer for decent wages and these issues and should proceed as soon as practi- conditions; cable. (r) for denying individuals the right to re- This is from the United Nations and the ject individual contracts which cut pay and conditions and undermine collective OECD. I will leave it at that, and I commend bargaining and union representation; the bill to the House. (s) for allowing individual contracts to un- Mr MELHAM (Banks) (11.45 am)—I dermine the rights of Australian workers rise to oppose the Workplace Relations under collective agreements and Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 and Awards, for instance by eliminating to support the second reading amendment penalty rates, shift loadings, overtime moved by the honourable member for Perth, and holiday pay and other Award condi- Mr Smith. The second reading amendment tions; says: (t) for removing from almost 4 million em- “the House declines to give the bill a second read- ployees any protection from unfair dis- ing, because the House condemns the Govern- missal; ment— … … … and then it goes on for some pages. I want to (w) for proposing to jail union representa- quote particular subsections as follows: tives or fine them up to $33,000 if they

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 41

negotiate to include health and safety, In a free market economy, why shouldn’t training and other clauses in agreements; workers be able to collectively bargain? Why There are a number of other subsections to are we tying hands behind backs on one side the second reading amendment, but those I of the equation but not the other? This legis- have just read summarise a lot of my objec- lation gives bosses a free kick. I joined a un- tions to this obnoxious legislation. It staggers ion when I was working in my local pub and me that a government that has been four local club when I was working my way times elected by the Australian electorate, through university, and the union looked af- and that a Prime Minister who, when he was ter our conditions. We had reasonable condi- first elected, said that he would govern for all tions, but it was only as a result of being able of us and who has no doubt received elec- to be in a collective bargaining situation. toral support from Australian workers right Now we have a government that is actu- across the spectrum, would bring such legis- ally regulating against one sector of the lation into being now that they fortuitously community. It is regulating against those control both the House of Representatives people who wish to belong to unions and and the Senate. Why are they doing it? Pure who wish to have unions organise on their ideology. This is something the Prime Minis- behalf. The government cannot say that they ter has wanted all his adult life. In fairness, will allow people to still do that. As I look he has not changed his views. But my criti- through this legislation, I see clause after cism is that there was no specific mandate clause where there are provisions for impris- sought for these changes from the Australian onment or pecuniary penalties, monetary electorate at the last election. penalties, if certain behaviour is engaged in. That aside, I do not believe these changes One that strikes me is that the identity of are good for the Australian electorate. They parties to AWAs is not to be disclosed. That are going to further divide our work force. I is on page 59 of the bill in section 83BS, am not so much concerned for the articulate which says: members of the work force, people on high Identity of parties to AWAs not to be disclosed incomes who have the capacity to negotiate (1) A person commits an offence if: on their own behalf. My concern is for casual employees—and there are more casuals in (a) the person discloses information; and the work force now than ever before, cour- (b) the information is protected information; tesy of the casualisation that has taken place and under this government—young male and (c) the discloser has reasonable grounds to female students, migrant women and people believe that the information will identify on poor wages; people who, without a union another person as being, or having been, arguing on their behalf, will be helpless. a party to an AWA; and They will be left at the hands of unscrupu- (d) the disclosure is not made by the dis- lous employers, and let us not kid ourselves: closer in the course of performing func- there are employers out there who are un- tions or duties as a workplace agreement official; and scrupulous. (e) the disclosure is not required or permit- This will shift more profits to the bosses. ted by this Act, by another Act, by regu- This is not about protecting existing condi- lations made for the purposes of another tions or protecting existing workers. Individ- provision of this Act or by regulations ual workers will have less to bargain with. I made for the purposes of another Act; support collective bargaining; I always have. and

CHAMBER 42 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

(f) the person whose identity is disclosed am not one to stand in the parliament and say has not, in writing, authorised the dis- that unions have not been guilty of poor con- closure. duct in the past; they have. I do not seek to Penalty: Imprisonment for 6 months. defend poor conduct—and I do not seek to That forces secrecy into the workplace in defend poor conduct on the part of employ- relation to AWAs. That can only be to the ees. But I never cease to be amazed at the benefit of the employer; it is designed to double standards of some on the other side nobble the employee. who paint a rosy picture of employers. Not A number of other provisions are worth all employers do the right thing by their em- recounting. In the explanatory memorandum ployees or have decent work practices. at pages 203 to 207, under the headings Amongst conditions of employment, a num- ‘New Division 10—Prohibited conduct’ and ber of issues relating to health and safety are ‘New section 104’, we see ‘Coercion and questionable when it comes to employers. I duress’. The explanatory memorandum out- am worried about this particular legislation lines coercion in relation to industrial action because it seems to be all one way. It has this but notes that it is not coercion for an em- rosy picture of employers. ployer to require an employee to make an As I said earlier, my concern is for that AWA. In other words, as it states it is not class of employees who are vulnerable, coercion for an employer to require an em- whose first language might not be English ployee to make an AWA, we can take it that and who do not have the capacity to do an employers can coerce employees to make an AWA, on their own behalf, with their em- AWA. That is deemed not to be coercion. ployer. I do not believe that we should have Why is that provision there? In effect, it is the situation where you take the agreement there to favour the employer at the expense or you get the sack. The government has al- of the employee. ready extended its unfair dismissal laws for The bill has other provisions; one I par- companies with up to 100 employees but that ticularly want to go to is the right of entry. figure was not the one they used before the That is explained at page 363 of the explana- election. There is no doubt that the govern- tory memorandum. We now have complex ment is using its fortuitous majority in the rules for the right of entry, including defining upper house to bring in this sort of legisla- a ‘fit and proper person’. We find that a per- tion. mit may not be issued to an official if they I believe that, at the end of the day, this are not deemed ‘fit and proper’; in addition, legislation will come back to haunt the gov- they must never have been convicted of an ernment. I do not want to see us go down the offence. Those conditions also apply to the American path. I think Australia has a rea- official’s organisation. My worry is that that sonable history. In Australia, in the period of particular part of the legislation is genuinely the Hawke-Keating governments, industrial aimed at unions and their ability to enter the disputes were at an all-time low and wages workplace and is more a preventive provi- did not increase to the level that some em- sion. ployees and others would have liked, but that In addition, it empowers the AIRC to deal was because there were trade-offs. The ac- with abuses of the right of entry system. I cord saw superannuation, child care and have no problem with abuses being picked other things brought into play as part of the up in legislation; I think that is important. I total package of an employee’s remuneration. So it was not just totally about wage

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 43 increases; other conditions were considered That provide for trade union training leave, bar- by government at that time. gaining fees to trade unions or paid union meetings; This government has been fortunate. We talk about the unwinnable 1993 election, but Providing that any future agreement must be a union collective agreement; this government won the 1996 election and was left with a good economy. Part of the Mandating union involvement in dispute resolu- reason it won the 1996 election was that tion; John Howard campaigned at that time by Providing a remedy for unfair dismissal; and arguing for minimal change. He did not go to Other matters proscribed by regulation/legislation the electorate proposing a radical alternative The final cruncher is the new section 112, government. which allows ministerial declarations termi- This is a very radical bill. It is a huge nating bargaining periods. As I understand change to existing practices, and some of it section 112A(4), there are pecuniary penal- will take time to filter through. The govern- ties for not complying of 300 penalty units ment will tell you that the bill will improve for a body corporate and 60 penalty units for the lot of workers, but I am not sure of that; I a person. My understanding is that this ap- do not believe that is the thrust of the bill. It plies to all agreements. We have a minister is not about improving the lot of workers; it that can rock up to any agreement and de- is about shifting profits to the bosses’ side of clare termination of the bargaining period. the equation; it is about making it easier to There is no point telling the government terminate someone’s employment. My view that they should rethink their legislation; this is that it will be a dog-eat-dog situation in the legislation is going to pass basically una- workplace, and that will create some prob- mended. I understand Senator Joyce might lems for the economy. have some concerns, but by negotiation he I am interested to see whether there is any will end up supporting the bill, like he did on evidence that those on the other side of the Telstra. At the end of the day, sadly, the gov- House can produce that will show that this is ernment will get their way and workers in going to lead to an increase in productivity. I this country are going to suffer unnecessar- am not sure that there is. This is not being ily—some of whom, frankly, voted for this done on the basis of increased productivity; government. It is going to be up to us, when it is being done on the basis of ideology. we come back to office, to repair the dam- Proposed section 101D states: age. The regulations may specify matters that are pro- This is going to wreak damage on the vul- hibited content for the purposes of this Act. nerable, the dispossessed and those lower The WorkChoices booklet specifies such paid workers who do not have the capacity to prohibited content on page 23. It states: organise on their behalf. In a capitalist, free- Clauses that cannot be included in agreements market system, I find it interesting that the are those: party of the free market are, in effect, saying Prohibiting AWAs; they will not allow a free market. They are going to tie the hands of some employees Restricting the use of independent contractors or behind their backs. They are going to make it on-hire arrangements; harder for you to bargain and harder for you Allowing for industrial action during the term of to achieve fair pay. Why? Because you are an agreement; on the wrong side. With this legislation, the

CHAMBER 44 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 government has come down fairly and this bill in their eyes would bring forward. squarely on the side of the employers. This That is disappointing, but it is something that legislation is not about looking after the we on this side of the House have become all workers. The government does not even pre- too familiar with when it comes to industrial tend to be fair in this situation. (Time ex- relations reform or any change whatsoever pired) on workplace relations. Mr ANTHONY SMITH (Casey) (12.05 You only need to go back and look at the pm)—I rise this afternoon to support the attitude and approach of those opposite to Workplace Relations Amendment (Work previous reforms to see that they have per- Choices) Bill 2005, which is very important formed the role of roadblock on every single for Australia’s future. It will provide a truly proposed reform in industrial relations in the national system of choice, simplicity and last 10 years. What we are seeing here today fairness. On this side of the House, we in this debate is just another groundhog day strongly believe it gets the balance right. It of negative scaremongering and opportun- provides for the much needed reforms that ism. strike the right balance for us to create fur- Those opposite opposed any move to in- ther job opportunities and greater choices troduce voluntary unionism. They opposed and to keep the economy strong, not just to- all of the reforms back in 1996. They op- morrow but well into the future. It is in the posed moves to improve the waterfront and interests of Australia, the electorate I repre- make Australia’s waterfront more competi- sent and the outer eastern suburbs of Mel- tive and efficient. They did so in the full bourne generally. knowledge that our waterfront was not oper- As I said, we believe this bill gets the bal- ating effectively. Now they look at a water- ance right. It ensures that there are important front operating more effectively, building a protections, which the Minister for Employ- better economy, and they say nothing. ment and Workplace Relations, in his second Those opposite also oppose any moves to reading speech and numerous times subse- fix up some of the worst areas of union thug- quently, has outlined. It is worth reminding gery and intimidation, like the building in- some of the members opposite of what those dustry. They opposed a royal commission protections are. Principally, the Fair Pay into that. It seems that when it comes to sup- Commission will set and adjust the federal porting the union movement there is nothing minimum wage, minimum award classifica- they will not support if they are asked to. tion rates of pay, federal minimum wages for There is nothing that they will not differenti- juniors and trainees—including school based ate themselves on. That is easily explained apprentices and employees with disabili- by the fact that they are simply owned and ties—minimum wages for piece workers, as operated by the trade union movement. well as casual loadings. This bill allows peo- Those opposite conveniently ignore the ple to have a choice and provides those im- changes that have been made over the last 10 portant protections. years and go into their latest scare campaign. In all of the speeches of those opposite Their rhetoric and speeches—the breathless and in the commentary from those opposite scare campaign by the Leader of the Opposi- in the media in the three weeks or so since tion—are identical to what occurred in 1996. this bill was introduced, we have seen a scare If you just replay the tape from 1996, you campaign, a dialogue of doomsday on what will see the same thing. What did the now

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 45

Leader of the Opposition say back in 1996 odds with what they said, but they do not when the government embarked on its first blush: they move on. They just go from one round of needed reforms? He said that it scare campaign to the next. would create an Australia with: What happens if we compare what has ... the kind of low wage, low productivity indus- happened in the economy and what has hap- trial wasteland we see in the United States and pened in the labour market in terms of tangi- New Zealand where jobs can be bought at bargain ble outcomes for Australians and in terms of basement rates. the sorts of people working hard in my elec- He said that Australia would go: torate of Casey with what they experienced ... straight down the American road on industrial in the previous period of Labor government relations legislation, straight down the American between 1983 and 1996? That is the real road on wages justice ... scare—what actually happened. There was He continued: wage growth of just 1.2 per cent and there ... and that produces social dislocation more than was a decline in the minimum wage of about anything else. five per cent in real terms. This was a delib- He also said: erate policy. This was not something of which they were ashamed; it is something of At the end of the day, guns are a symptom of that which they were proud—in terms of repress- process. ing real wages. That is where wages were What did Senator Mark Bishop say back in repressed—under those opposite. Where did 1996? He said: it all end? Of course, it all ended in the great The bill before the Senate today will result in economic train crash of the Keating reces- lower wages and conditions in a range of indus- sion. There were a million people out of tries ... All this bill offers Australians is a 19th work. What sort of lot did they have? What century industrial relations agenda in a 21st cen- sort of job did they have? They had none. tury world ... The scare campaign has been back again There was scare after scare. In June 1996, in recent days. We have been told that people the member for Batman said in this place will die of asbestos disease because of this that the bill ‘threatens the very fabric of our bill. Workers will be enslaved, we have been society’. That was their scare campaign then; that is their scare campaign now. told by the Labor Party. We have been told that society will break down; that children But what actually happened after 1996? will not be able to be raised properly; and The economy grew. We have had strong and that children will not see their parents on stable growth for the last nine or 10 years. Christmas Day. We have been told that there Wages have increased by nearly 15 per cent. will be a class war. It is all the same old Some 1.7 million new jobs have been cre- stuff. ated. Unemployment is the lowest in 30 The problem those opposite have is that years. Interest rates have remained at historic they have said it all before. When the legisla- lows. That is what happened. That is how tion comes into effect, it will create the plat- believable the scare campaign of those oppo- form for continued growth, prosperity, op- site was in 1996. portunity and choice across Australia. Small And that is the test. What those opposite businesses locally in electorates like mine said in 1996 is identical to what they said and those of my colleagues, and across the today and what the next speaker will say. outer suburban seats, are really the lifeblood What happened after 1996 is completely at

CHAMBER 46 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 and the future guarantee of job prospects for been an integral component of Australia’s many of our young people. social framework, a key part of our great That is why the unfair dismissal law pro- Australian social contract and a key con- visions are so important. We have new and tributor to the prosperity we share as a na- emerging businesses in horticulture, tourism tion. All this has been made possible be- and hospitality, which are very much at the cause, for the last 100 years as a nation, we cutting edge of the growth in our economy, have believed that our industrial relations that are frightened to hire people because of system, while never remaining static and the current unfair dismissal laws, which always embracing reform, was both an eco- those opposite would imply enshrine all the nomic agreement and at the same time a so- rights of termination. But of course they do cial contract. not. They would imply that those unfair dis- With this bill all this is about to change, missal laws have existed since settlement in through the most extreme changes wrought Australia, but they were only introduced in in a century. I want to make three points 1993. For the 6,000 or so small businesses in about this bill that relate to my own portfolio those emerging areas this will provide oppor- responsibilities—a bill that is both bad for tunity, choice and jobs for young Australians the economy and that undermines fairness. to live and work in their area. The first concerns the bill’s impact on pro- In concluding, because I know we are on a ductivity, international competitiveness and short time schedule: take away the political our trade performance. The second is the rhetoric of politics in Australia and look impact on fairness as measured by the agreed abroad. Look at the reforms that are being standards of the International Labour Or- introduced by this government and compare ganisation. The third, which also needs to be them to the reforms and the rhetoric of the brought to the House’s attention, beyond the British Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair. ILO, is the compatibility between this bill The name Tony Blair is hardly uttered by and Australia’s commitments under the Aus- those opposite. Look to the independent as- tralia-US Free Trade Agreement in relation sessments of international economic bodies to the basic labour standards stipulated as such as the IMF and the OECD, which say part of that agreement. that these sorts of reforms are necessary to Last week Australia recorded another provide future prosperity, future growth and trade deficit of $1.6 billion for September, future job opportunities. the 44th consecutive monthly trade deficit, Mr RUDD (Griffith) (12.16 pm)—The the deficit that dare not speak its name. Last purpose of Workplace Relations Amendment year Australia recorded its largest trade defi- (Work Choices) Bill 2005 is to radically cit ever of $25.5 billion compared to a deficit change the nature of Australia’s industrial of only $864 million in 1996. That contrib- relations system—an industrial relations sys- uted to Australia’s record current account tem that has served Australia well both in deficit last year of $57 billion, blowing out times of war and in times of peace; an indus- Australia’s foreign debt to a record level of trial relations system that has served Austra- $430 billion and leaving Australia exposed to lia well in times of economic expansion of any sudden adverse change in sentiment by the type we have seen this last 15 years as international financial markets. Despite gov- well as periods of economic downturn; and ernment assurances, any recovery in Austra- an industrial relations system that has also lia’s trade performance is turning out to be, at best, a very protracted affair. Average an-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 47 nual export growth under the Howard gov- over reason. Australia’s level of productivity ernment between 1996 and 2004 was less could in fact diminish further if these new than half that achieved by Labor between laws lead to significant disruption in the 1983 and 1996 right across the board—in work force and/or a reduction in investment commodities, agriculture, manufacturing and in skills and technology as employers seek to services. increase productivity by cutting wage costs The reasons for this appalling trade per- rather than investing in new plant and formance are many. Key factors that have equipment and upgrading the skills of their been alluded to in numerous reports from the work forces. Any further reduction in pro- RBA, the IMF, the OECD and others include ductivity will exacerbate our appalling trade infrastructure constraints, skills shortages performance. and a lack of government support and in- The Productivity Commission has done a vestment in education, R&D and innovation. considerable amount of research in this area. The combination of these factors has led to It attributes Australia’s productivity growth our worst productivity growth figures in 19 surge in the 1990s to the long-term policy years. We must reverse this slide. In the nine- reform strategy implemented by the Hawke ties Australia enjoyed the best run of produc- and Keating governments that removed un- tivity growth on record. Compared to the US, necessary barriers to competition and gave Australia rose from 79 per cent of US pro- government business enterprises more ductivity rates in 1983 to 86 per cent by autonomy and exposure to commercial disci- 1998. But, since 1998, we have gone into plines. Structural factors, including the intro- decline. We have now fallen back from 86 duction and widespread take-up of new tech- per cent to 81 per cent, losing most of the nology, especially information communica- gains of the Labor years. The OECD has said tions technology, and an increase in average that productivity measures consistently show education levels in Australia, also produced a that output per person hour in Australia is burst in productivity growth. These are the well below that in leading countries—in the policies—particularly greater investment in US and also some in Europe. That is a fun- education, skills, training, R&D and innova- damental cause of our export decline, and tion—that we must rediscover, reinvent and this parliament should be debating legislation reinvest in if we are going to be able to gen- that will reverse our productivity decline, not erate the next productivity growth surge. exacerbate it. In announcing his workplace Putting workers onto individual contracts is relations reforms in May this year, the Prime not a sure-fire route to productivity growth. Minister said: If we look across the Tasman and assess ... our future living standards will rely largely on the New Zealand experience following the the productivity of our workers and their work- implementation of the Employment Con- places ... Only through this— tracts Act in 1991, which set the groundwork ‘reform’— for many of the features contained in this ... will the full potential for productivity gains in bill, we see that the ECA abolished industrial the Australian economy be realised. awards, established a system to impose indi- In advancing these claims the government vidual contracts and ended the official rec- has not advanced any cogent body of evi- ognition of trade unions. The truth is that the dence. In fact, it is a triumph of ideology changes instigated in the name of productiv- over evidence. It is a triumph of prejudice ity under the ECA have not resulted in greater productivity growth. Dr David Peetz,

CHAMBER 48 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 of Griffith University, compared the experi- Relations Act has been in effect for the full ence of Australia and New Zealand in the period of the current productivity cycle, 1990s. Between the late seventies and the which started in 1999-2000. Prior to that early nineties, Australia and New Zealand time, labour productivity was growing at experienced very similar rates of productiv- around 3.2 per cent, but it has since dropped ity growth but in 1991 Australia and New to just 2.3 per cent per annum. Dr Peetz said: Zealand chose radically different workplace ... this is even below the rate of labour productiv- systems: Australia moved towards a system ity growth that applied during the traditional of collective enterprise agreements, while award period. It is despite the fact that average New Zealand shifted to individual contracts union density, at 53 per cent, was over twice the under the ECA. If the government claims are rate of union density that has applied in the cur- to be believed, New Zealand would have rent cycle. experienced much higher productivity Union density in the current cycle is 24 per growth. In fact, the reverse is the case— cent. Australia’s employment protection leg- something the Treasurer refused to engage in islation is already one of the least restrictive when asked this precise question by the in the OECD. According to the OECD’s Em- shadow Treasurer, the member for Lilley, in ployment outlook report, only the US, Can- parliament yesterday. ada, the UK, Ireland and New Zealand had Australia’s growth in labour productivity less strict employment protection legislation was far superior to New Zealand’s year after than Australia. Despite this, the Prime Minis- year because collective agreements encour- ter argues that Australia’s current laws image more harmonious workplaces while also pose unnecessary costs on business—small, enhancing greatly the industrial flexibility of medium and large alike. Where is the evi- individual firms. This approach to enterprise dence to support the Prime Minister’s argu- agreements was based on the reality that, ment that our current IR laws impose bur- beyond the base level protection provided by densome costs on Australian business, small, the relevant industry-wide awards, firms medium or large? None has been advanced. needed greater individual flexibility to oper- Where is the evidence that these new laws ate in the global marketplace. But, while will shift Australia onto the next productivity Australia’s productivity growth improved growth surge? None has been advanced. In considerably, New Zealand’s productivity their latest long-term economic forecast for levels languished well behind not only Aus- Australia, BIS Shrapnel definitively state: tralia but also most developed countries dur- As it currently stands, the proposed changes will ing the 1990s. New Zealand’s productivity in do little to improve labour productivity. the 1990s in fact fell below the level BIS Shrapnel pointed out that it was the achieved in the 1980s; yet, at a time of fail- Keating government’s industrial relations ing productivity, the government wants to reforms in the early- to mid-1990s that gave take Australia down that very same New the major boost to Australia’s productivity Zealand path. over the second half of the 1990s. In a stark Dr Peetz also noted in his submission to a warning that this parliament should heed, recent Senate inquiry into workplace agree- particularly when our economy is burdened ments that the fall in Australia’s productivity by record levels of debt and significant ex- performance in recent years coincides with ternal imbalances, BIS Shrapnel question the the implementation of the government’s whole basis for these reforms by also noting: Workplace Relations Act. The Workplace

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 49

It is probably a bad time macro-economically to cause of participation in union activities outside buy a fight on industrial relations. working hours or, with the consent of the em- The International Labour Organisation, of ployer, within working hours. which Australia was a founding member in Article 4 says: 1919, is the global tripartite agency respon- Measures appropriate to national conditions shall sible for setting and monitoring basic mini- be taken, where necessary, to encourage and pro- mum workplace standards known as interna- mote the full development and utilisation of ma- tional labour standards, or ILS. As a member chinery for voluntary negotiation between em- of the ILO, Australia voluntarily agreed to ployers or employers’ organisations and workers’ and is bound to implement international la- organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of bour standards in Australian labour law, in- collective agreements. cluding the application of international juris- prudence protecting the right to strike from Furthermore, article 11 of the Freedom of legal sanctions. In June this year, the gov- Association and Protection of the Right to ernment was successful in having Australia Organise Convention states: elected to the governing body of the ILO to Each Member of the International Labour Organi- represent the Asia-Pacific region. At the time sation for which this Convention is in force un- of Australia’s election to the ILO, Minister dertakes to take all necessary and appropriate Andrews claimed: measures to ensure that workers and employers may exercise freely the right to organise. Australia has much to offer ILO members, and we Right now in Geneva the ILO Committee on look forward to greater engagement with the ILO both as a governing body member and representa- Freedom of Association is considering a tive of our closest neighbours. complaint brought by the ACTU against the government’s current workplace laws and The minister should be aware that being whether they breach the freedom of associa- elected to the ILO governing body brings tion convention. That complaint is being with it additional responsibilities, particu- prosecuted in relation to the building con- larly the responsibility to lead by example struction industry legislation of 2003. This and to show substantive commitment to the bill further undermines workers’ freedoms to principles of the ILO. To highlight how out voluntarily associate in the workplace. This of step the government is with basic interna- new legislation again calls into question the tional standards, let me simply raise for the government’s observance of the most fun- benefit of the House a number of the key ILO conventions. Article 1 of Convention damental of ILO standards of freedom of association and the rights of workers to col- 98, the Right to Organise and Collective lectively bargain. Bargaining Convention, states: Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against ‘Legislation more antagonistic to workers’ acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of interests than operates in either the US and their employment. Britain’ is how Dr Peetz describes it. The US Such protection shall apply more particularly in passed the National Labor Relations Act in respect of acts calculated to— 1935. That act created a right to collective (a) make the employment of a worker subject to bargaining and requires employers to bargain the condition that he shall not join a union or shall in good faith. Employees are covered by col- relinquish trade union membership; lective agreements that bind all if more than (b) cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a half agree. Under the British Employment worker by reason of union membership or be- Relations Act, businesses are required to rec-

CHAMBER 50 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 ognise unions and negotiate with them if 1. internationally recognised labour principles they cover more than half of the work force. and rights means: Where is the balance in the Australian legis- (a) the right of association; lation between employers, employees and (b) the right to organize and bargain collectively their representatives? There is no such provi- ... sion available at present within the bill which Not only does the government have interna- is consistent with Australia’s obligations to tionally binding commitments to implement comply with the ILO standards of freedom of ILO standards through Australia’s member- association and workers’ rights to collective ship of the ILO, particularly as we are now a bargaining. member of the ILO governing body, but The government’s new workplace laws these commitments are also reinforced under will effectively deny workers the right to our obligations under the USFTA. organise, the right to strike and the right to The Prime Minister, in short, is seeking to collectively bargain. Such laws breach fun- Americanise Australia’s industrial relations damentally internationally accepted stan- system—low wages and low skills that will dards for employee rights and represent a inevitably result in lower productivity, not further chapter in the government’s general higher productivity as the government mis- contempt for the rules and principles of the leadingly claims. It is a recipe for an econ- multilateral order of which we are part. omy built on the shoulders of the working It should also be brought to the attention poor. When the economy turns down, as it of the House that on 1 January this year the inevitably will at some point, the harshness Australia-US Free Trade Agreement came of these measures will be visited upon those into force. Debate about the USFTA centred who are the most vulnerable in this society. in large part on Labor’s critically important Honourable members know that, if they are amendments to protect the Pharmaceutical in honest dialogue with their consciences. In Benefits Scheme and to preserve Australian such a situation, the diminished bargaining culture and content on television. In signing power of workers and significantly greater up to the FTA, the government also made a power of employers, along with the exclu- commitment to meeting its obligations relat- sion of unions from the workplace, will lead ing to international labour standards. Under to uncompensated job cuts, fierce competi- chapter 18 of the USFTA: tion between employees to stay in work on The Parties reaffirm their obligations as members significantly reduced wages and conditions, of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and exploitation of the most vulnerable. This and their commitments under the ILO Declara- is the path that the government is deliber- tion on Fundamental Principles and Rights at ately taking us down. Work and its Follow-up (1998) (ILO Declara- The intent of this bill is best summed up tion). by Saul Eslake, the Chief Economist of the It continues: ANZ Bank, who recently wrote: Each Party shall strive to ensure that such labour In the end, attitudes to the government’s proposed principles and the internationally recognised la- reforms are probably informed more by politics bour principles and rights set forth in Article 18.7 than by economics ... are recognised and protected by its law. That is Saul Eslake, not the Labor Party. Pre- What are those rights set forth in article cisely—a triumph of crass politics over 18.7? sound economics; a triumph of crass politics

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 51 over the demand for a just society. We need tion to this debate, I hope to bring the focus to ask why it is that these laws have been back to what workplace reform is all about. drawn into virtual universal condemnation The central reality of economic life in Aus- by the churches—Catholic, Anglican, Unit- tralia is that in the absence of a strong econ- ing Church. Minister Andrews, sitting on the omy, profitable businesses and a well- front bench, shakes his head. Are you in dia- motivated work force, no code of industrial logue with your papal encyclicals on this relations law can protect the working men question? Are you in dialogue with Cardinal and women of Australia. The welfare and the Pell on this question? Are you in dialogue prosperity of the working men and women of with the Catholic episcopate on this ques- Australia are directly dependent on the tion? I submit, Minister, you are not. The strength of the Australian economy. Absent a Evangelical churches, the Salvation Army, strong economy, the living standards of the even Family First, which has close links with men and women of Australia will decline. Australia’s Pentecostal churches, condemn it. Absent a strong economy, unemployment Those opposite know this to be true. will rise. Absent a strong economy, all the The condemnation of these laws by the aspirations we have for the employment fu- churches is even more universal than the tures of our children and grandchildren will churches’ condemnation of the Iraq war. It is diminish. a rare thing in our national life when the To illustrate this point, let me take the churches raise their voices in virtual unison. House back to the last time this country had The government’s response has been to at- a recession. That was in the early 1990s, and tack the churches—an attack appallingly led you all know who was in charge of the coun- by the member for Higgins and the member try then—but leave that aside. My central for Menzies. Wisdom suggests that when the point is that in the early 1990s this country’s churches speak in unison we in the legisla- industrial relations system was far more ture should pause, we should listen and we heavily regulated than it was in the early part should reflect rather than unleash the dogs of of this government’s term of office and infi- war as these members have done. If these nitely more regulated than it is at the present laws remain in place in Australia, Australian time. My simple reminder to those who sit families will look back to these days in No- opposite is that, despite all the rules and vember 2005 as the time when parliament regulations, despite the survival into the legislated fairness out of the Australian way early 1990s of a heavily centralised wage of life. These laws are not the laws of De- fixation system, that did not prevent more akinite liberals; these are the laws of Thatch- than one million Australians being thrown erite conservatives. These are laws which we out of work. The reason it did not prevent intend to fight with every fibre of our politi- those one million people being thrown out of cal being and with the single objective of work is that the industrial relations system of defeating at the ballot box those who have that time did not contribute to the mitigation given this legislation sordid birth. I oppose of the recession. That is the test that you the bill. have to apply. The test you have to apply is Mr HOWARD (Bennelong—Prime Min- the contribution an industrial relations sys- ister) (12.36 pm)—It is with some commit- tem makes to the strength of the economy. ment that I rise to support the Workplace During the course of this debate, I have Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill been accused, and we on this side of the 2005. In the process of making a contribu- House who proudly support this legislation

CHAMBER 52 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 have been accused, of many things. In the courage of Margaret Thatcher, the British dying moments of his speech, the member economy would not now be one of the for Griffith said that we seek to Americanise strongest in Europe. Had it not been for her the Australian economy. That is wrong. I do reforms, the unemployment level in Great not seek to Americanise the Australian econ- Britain now would probably have been dou- omy; I seek to modernise the industrial rela- ble what it is at present. So I do not walk tions system of the Australian economy to away from the achievements of that remark- the benefit of the men and women of Austra- able individual. lia. That is what I seek to do. I have been What we are fashioning here in Australia accused of having an ideological obsession is a unique set of labour laws for the future with workplace relations reform. It is true of the Australian nation. They are not in that I, along with many people in this par- ideological slavery to either an American or liament, have argued long and hard the cause a European model. What we are fashioning is of industrial relations reform, but I have an Australian model for an Australia of 2005. done it in the belief that industrial relations What that requires is a recognition of the reform will lift the living standards of the enormous contribution that the small and Australian people, and I have powerful evi- medium business sector of our economy is dence on my side in arguing that point of making to our current prosperity and what it view. will do to our future prosperity and our fu- I look around the world and I see a direct ture employment. I remind those who sit op- correlation between highly regulated labour posite that there are now more small business markets and high levels of unemployment. men and women in Australia than there are We see the domestic misery of the French members of the trade union movement. I do people at the present time, and, unlike the not say that critically of the trade union Labor Party, I am not going to blame the ri- movement, because I acknowledge that the ots in Paris on the industrial relations system trade union movement has made a significant that France has, but I do point out that one of contribution to the history and the develop- the reasons for a feeling of alienation and ment of this country. There is nothing in this disadvantage is the persistence of high levels legislation that denies the right of the trade of unemployment in this country against a union movement to represent people who are background of other European economies its members or to represent people in bar- with less regulated labour markets that have gaining situations who are not its members. I experienced much lower levels of unem- simply want to point out to those who sit ployment. opposite that the world has changed from the I know that those who sit opposite do not days when almost 50 per cent of the work like my constant reference to the Prime Min- force of Australia belonged to the trade union ister of the United Kingdom, but the attitude movement. The world has changed from the he took to labour market regulation when he days when we were a five-day-a-week soci- became Prime Minister is very instructive. ety. The world has changed enormously, and The member for Griffith talked in a sneering our industrial relations system has to change fashion about Margaret Thatcher. In my with it. view, Margaret Thatcher is one of the sig- We are reminded from time to time by the nificant political figures of Western history Labor Party that great reforms were made in in the post-World War II period. It is unde- 1993. It is true that enterprise bargaining niably the case that, had it not been for the agreements were introduced into our indus-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 53 trial relations system in 1993, but they were law at that particular time, the registration heavily circumscribed by a requirement that procedures that were involved were not very a union be involved irrespective of whether different from the registration procedures or not people participating in the agreements required to register in the United Kingdom, were members of the union. Side by side Canada, South Africa or the United States as with that superficially liberalised approach a foreign company. came the introduction of what I can only call When I was first employed as an articled the infamous unfair dismissal laws of the clerk in a junior solicitor’s in Sydney, there Laurie Brereton-Paul Keating period, be- were none of the great national law firms cause those unfair dismissal laws have de- that we have at the present time; they were stroyed job opportunities in this country over all locally based. The whole focus and opera- the 11 years that they have been in operation. tion of our economy has changed. There was Of all the things that are contained in this a day when the political order was reversed legislation, none is more important than our in this country. There was a day when Labor commitment to repeal the unfair dismissal premiers, successful Labor leaders, argued laws, which have not been part of our indus- for a single national industrial relations sys- trial scene since Federation; they have only tem. The person I still regard as one of the been part of our industrial scene since 1994, most consummate Labor figures of the post and then as a result of a secret deal made World War II period, Neville Wran, argued between the then Labor government and the very passionately for a single industrial rela- trade union movement during the 1993 elections system when he was Premier of New tion campaign. That secrecy has been con- South Wales. I can even recall him on occa- ceded by the then President of the ACTU and sions suggesting that he would be willing to the now Labor member for Throsby, Jennie hand the industrial relations power over to George. The removal of those unfair dis- the Commonwealth. Unlike less successful missal laws will add further impetus, I know, Labor leaders in this country, he recognised to the desire of all of us to see the unem- the changes that had been going on in rela- ployment rate in this country in future have a tion to the Australian economy. ‘4’ in front of it rather than a ‘5’. The contri- Any proposal that involves the creation of bution that that can make is very significant a single national system is bound to attract indeed. criticism from some who wonder whether One of the distinguishing features of this some degree of local autonomy is being legislation is our desire to create a single given up. But the reality is that the economic national industrial relations system. Some and industrial advantages of a single national may argue that that is unnecessary. I would system are going to be very major indeed. argue very strongly that in the 31 years I They will work to the benefit of business, have been a member of this House there has both large and small, and they will also work been an enormous change in the perspective to the benefit of employees. in which business operates in this country. Let me spend a few moments analysing Very small businesses now often have inter- the criticisms that have been made of this state operations. In the early 1960s, if you legislation. We have heard a lot from the La- formed a company in Sydney and you bor Party about how things are being gagged wanted to do business in Melbourne, believe through. We have heard a lot from the Labor it or not you had to register in Victoria as a Party about how debate allowed for this leg- foreign company. I can say, having practised

CHAMBER 54 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 islation has been inadequate. It is my under- said that Australian workplaces will resemble standing that when the legislation is voted on South America’s. In the House of Represen- some time later this week there will have tatives on 3 November 2005, Kim Beazley, been infinitely more time allowed for debate Leader of the Opposition, said: on this bill than was allowed for debate on ... it is the pre-Federation Liberal Party with just a the legislation dealing with the goods and nasty right wing, hand-me-down ideology to services tax. Americanise our workplaces. I have listened to many of the arguments … … … that have been put forward, and I have lis- This has gone beyond Americanisation of work- tened to the accusations that we are driven places— blindly by ideology and rhetoric and that we I was right— do not base our arguments on reason. That is perhaps the South Americanisation of workplaces. why I have done a little bit of research on some of the absurd remarks that have been In an interview with Ross Davie on 28 June made. I would say with respect to those who 2005, the Leader of the Opposition said that sit opposite: if you seek to enlist the support economic growth will cease. The problem is of the Australian public on this issue, argue that that is what the same person said in your case with some kind of logic and rea- 1996. son, rather than with the absurd hyperbole In 1996 when we introduced some re- that has come forth from those who sit oppo- forms, which were watered down as a result site—for example, that there will be more of the action of the Australian Democrats and divorce as a result of this legislation. In the the Labor Party in the Senate, the same dire workplace relations debate on 2 November forebodings came forth, not only from the 2005, Kim Beazley said: Leader of the Opposition but also from the It is not good for the economy for workers to be member for Perth. Seeing that we have had unable to afford their holidays, their relaxation or something of a sermon from the member for a decent family life. Divorce is not good for the Griffith—and I will come back to that in a economy. Divorce is patently bad for the econ- moment—I have to, of course, quote Janet omy. Giles of SA Unions who said on 11 June And the dire warning that parents will be 2005 that it was ‘a pact with the devil’. Then estranged from their children came from of course the Transport Workers Union of none other than Sharan Burrow—who, rather Australia said that more people will die in infamously, was once caught on camera say- road accidents and that women and children ing how good it would be if you had a mum will be murdered. This is actually the most whose son or daughter had been injured or absurd claim of all: lost their life in an industrial accident. The history books show what happened in Amer- That is the measure of the absurd hyper- ica. People on picket lines were murdered. bole that has come from those who sit oppo- Women and children were killed, and that is the road this Prime Minister wants to take us down. It site. It has been said that Australia will re- is a disgrace. gress to the 19th century—so we are not just Americanising; we are now going back to the That was Bob Smith, Labor MLC, speaking 19th century—and that families will be set in the Victorian parliament on 4 October against families and that friends will be set 2005. against friends. Mr Speaker, I do no injustice That is a measure of the desperate rhetoric to those who sit opposite. It has also been that has been engaged in by the Australian

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 55

Labor Party in order to discredit this legisla- employment. It will lift productivity. Be- tion. Can I say to those who sit opposite: the cause it will boost the economy and boost greater the hyperbole of that kind that you productivity, it is the best reform that our embrace, the more determined we are to industrial relations system can have. At the support this legislation. Anybody in the La- end of the day, the only thing that can guar- bor Party who imagines that that kind of ab- antee the job security of the Australian peo- surd abuse is going to make any difference to ple and the real wages of the Australian peo- the support that these parties have for this ple is a strong economy. No set of laws, no legislation is mistaken. set of dogma, no set of rules, no set of rul- Before concluding can I just say some- ings by industrial tribunals can deliver a job thing about the member for Griffith’s contri- when the economy is weak. That is the cen- bution on matters relating to the attitude of tral reality the Australian Labor Party does the Christian churches of this country. As not accept. members on both sides of the House will Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR (Corio) (12.56 know, I have never in the time I have been in pm)—The Howard government’s Workplace parliament sought to invoke religious author- Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill ity for particular views I hold. I respect the 2005 is the most vicious and obnoxious piece fact, as somebody who inadequately tries to of legislation I have seen introduced into this practise the Christian faith, that God is nei- House since I was elected in 1993 to repre- ther a Liberal supporter nor a Labor sup- sent working people in the Corio electorate. porter. People who absurdly suggest other- It is vicious because of the sheer breadth of wise do great injustice to religion. So it ap- its attack on the living standards and rights plies in relation to this issue. As somebody of working people in Geelong and their rep- who has always tried to bring some individ- resentatives in the workplace, and it is ob- ual conscience in decision-making to the noxious because it reflects the enduring practice of Christian belief, the idea that prejudice of a Prime Minister who smirks as there is a Catholic view, an Anglican view, a his government seeks to deceive decent Aus- Uniting Church view, a Presbyterian view, a tralians about the impact of this legislation Baptist view, a Pentecostal view, an atheist on their families and on their communities. view, a Lutheran view, a Buddhist view, a The impacts of this legislation are not Jewish view or an Islamic view on industrial hard to identify. It will destroy the living relations is absolutely absurd. Men and standards of many vulnerable working fami- women of good faith of all religions will of lies in the Geelong area. In many workplaces course reach different conclusions and, I it will pit some workers against their fellow hope, argue them with a degree of integrity. workers, creating mistrust and conflict where It does not really serve the purpose of a there was none before. Ultimately it will ad- proper understanding of this legislation or of versely impact on the family lives of many the attitude of Christian men and women in working families, as their incomes contract this country to try and suggest otherwise. and as reductions in their conditions of em- Let me conclude by paying tribute to my ployment further curtail their capacity to en- colleague the Minister for Employment and gage in their community. This is a despicable Workplace Relations, who has done a re- piece of legislation. It offends the very val- markable job in putting this legislation to- ues of fair play and democratic practice that gether. This legislation will be good for the many Australians hold dear. future of the Australian economy. It will lift

CHAMBER 56 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

Nowhere in this debate has the Prime dripping with arrogance, with his last slip of Minister advanced a coherent economic ar- the boot, so to speak, he is driving it hard gument for the extreme changes to Austra- into working families and the union move- lian workplaces that are enshrined in this ment. legislation. Nowhere has the Prime Minister The Workplace Relations Amendment mounted a social case that these changes will (Work Choices) Bill 2005 will create an in- advance in any way the productive relation- dustrial relations system that is extreme, un- ships necessary to underpin productivity and fair and divisive. The Prime Minister’s great growth or assist families to balance their opus is nothing more than an ideological work and family responsibilities. Indeed, this expression of narrow prejudice enshrined in Prime Minister’s failure to mount a coherent an outdated view of the world, which should social or economic argument for his pro- have been left in the decade of the last cen- posed changes is laid bare by the quite ob- tury in which it is rooted. I thoroughly en- scene $55 million advertising campaign be- dorse the second reading amendment moved ing mounted at the taxpayers’ expense to by my friend and colleague the honourable persuade the workers of Australia that these member for Perth, who is with me here in the changes will somehow improve their wages chamber today, for it eloquently summarises and conditions. all that is essentially wrong with the legisla- I would have thought that, if these tion. changes were so great for the economy and This legislation attacks the living stan- so great for working people, they could stand dards of Australian employees and their alone in argument without a $55 million ad- families by removing the no disadvantage vertising rort to ram the legislation and eve- test from collective and individual agree- rything in it down the throats of working ments. It fails to provide a guarantee that no people in this country. There is nothing so individual Australian employee will be worse obscene as stealing $55 million of workers’ off under these extreme industrial relations income tax dollars to fund a deceitful adver- changes. It undermines family life by pro- tising campaign to try and persuade families posing to give employers the power to that changes that will rip away their income change employees’ hours of work without and working conditions are really in their reasonable notice. It denies Australian em- best interests. It really does not come any ployees the capacity to bargain collectively more obscene than that. There can be no with their employer for decent wages and more cynical act of any government of any conditions. It guts the Australian Industrial political persuasion than that. Relations Commission and eliminates the This rotten piece of legislation ought to be role of the independent umpire to ensure fair understood in its historical context. The wages and conditions and to resolve dis- Prime Minister has attempted to implement putes. It removes almost four million em- this extreme industrial relations agenda be- ployees from the protection of unfair dis- fore. But it has been the collective wisdom of missal. It allows individual contracts to un- the Senate and this parliament, when it was dermine the rights of Australian workers un- free of total government control, to substan- der collective agreements and awards—for tially amend this extreme agenda in the na- instance, by eliminating penalty rates, shift tional interest. Now the Prime Minister has loadings, overtime, holiday pay and other total political control of both houses. In the award conditions. It denies individuals the twilight of a regrettable political career and right to reject individual contracts which cut

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 57 pay and conditions and undermine collective and radical attack on Australian workplaces? bargaining and union representation. It Likewise, when members opposite cite the launches an unprovoked attack on responsi- low level of industrial disputation in this ble trade unions and asserts that those unions country in recent times—industrial disputa- have no role in the economic and social fu- tion that was brought to its historical low ture of Australia, despite what the Prime levels by the Labor Party in government, not Minister has said in this chamber today. It by a coalition government—that in itself un- destroys rights achieved through the hard dermines their argument, their central eco- work of generations of Australian workers. It nomic thesis. undermines the principles of fairness that Ten years ago New Zealand walked down have underpinned the Australian industrial the path of individual industrial contracts in relations system for the past 100 years. labour relations. Australia under Labor As attacks on working families go, this walked down the path of collective enter- legislation is the most vicious and compre- prise based agreements. The rate of produc- hensive attack I have witnessed in the whole tivity and growth in the Australian economy of my time in public life. The erosion of has doubled that of the New Zealand econ- working conditions will be a slow burn. It omy. You cannot be such economic imbe- will be over time, as industrial workers have ciles that you do not understand the basic their wages and conditions pared away and economic arguments that we are advancing as their children take an AWA or do not get here today. The Treasurer claims that there is jobs, that the awful realisation will dawn on a lower unemployment rate in New Zealand Australians that John Howard has effectively than in Australia. He claims that, but he Americanised Australian labour relations. He omits to mention the real reason why the rate seeks to Americanise the Australian educa- of unemployment in New Zealand is so low: tion system. He seeks to Americanise the hundreds of thousands of them are over here, Australian health system. He seeks to Ameri- seeking a better standard of living than they canise the independence of Australia’s for- can obtain in their own country. Australia’s eign policy. And he now seeks to American- fundamental economic problems will not be ise our workplace relations. Is it no wonder addressed by an extreme and radical indus- that he is known in political circles as the trial relations policy. ‘little Bush’. We are a community under the Howard The central economic argument mounted Liberal government, and we are riddled with by the government in support of these external debt. Put simply: we are the banana changes—namely, that workplace flexibility republic that has been mentioned in Austra- is needed to maintain growth and employ- lia’s history, under the Liberal Party and un- ment—is fundamentally flawed. It is quite a der the tutelage of the Prime Minister and the pathetic argument. It founders on its own Treasurer. Household debt is also at record inconsistency. Labor left the coalition four levels. For many average families the loss of years of four per cent annual economic income from the loss of penalty rates could growth, and over the past 10 years the Aus- lead to them losing their homes. We as a so- tralian economy has grown at that rate. If the ciety have relied on consumption as the Australian economy has performed so well overwhelming driver of economic growth as a result of the structural and industrial domestically, and now many of our house- relations changes brought in by Labor, what holds are on a financial precipice. They can- possible justification is there for this extreme not afford to have an extreme industrial rela-

CHAMBER 58 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 tions system foisted upon them. Our national that the overwhelming majority of agricul- savings ratio is extremely poor, our manufac- tural workers are employed under federal turing industries are under enormous pres- awards, especially the federal Pastoral Indus- sure from our competitors and massive skills try Award. The Australian Dairy Informer— and infrastructure shortfalls inhibit our eco- the official organ of Australian Dairy Farm- nomic performance. Australia’s competitive ers Ltd, one of the most important rural or- economic future lies not in the punitive dog- ganisations representing farmers—said in its eat-dog workplace relations bill that we have edition on 4 November: before us, as promoted by this Liberal gov- The Federal Pastoral Award has historically been ernment, but in a committed and strategic a relatively flexible award, meaning that changes investment in education, skills, innovation to agricultural arrangements will be less signifi- and infrastructure. This bill before us is not a cant than some other industries. blueprint for future development; it is a In other words, dairy farmers have few com- blueprint for future productivity disaster. plaints about the current system and chang- I want to look at the effect that these un- ing it will bring little benefit. In any case, the fair and unwelcome changes will have on government are not planning to consign rural workers and farmers, because as these awards to the dustbin of history any shadow minister for agriculture and fisheries time soon. They have run into a problem of I am concerned about not only the economic their own making. They have finally woken impact on the rural work force but also the up to the fact that the proposed unfair indus- adverse impacts on the fabric of rural and trial relations changes will have a number of regional communities. The government be- unintended and unwelcome impacts on the lieve that the awards under which most of farming community and they simply have Australia’s agricultural workers are em- not got a clue as to how to deal with them. ployed are so bad that they plan to leave The reason is that 90 per cent of farmers them in place for the next five years—long run their businesses as sole traders or in after the rest of the government’s extreme partnerships; only 10 per cent are incorpo- changes to Australia’s industrial relations rated, and these are mostly owned by the big system are likely to have come into force. end of town. Yet the proposed new industrial The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries laws rely on businesses, including farm busi- and Forestry spent two parliamentary ques- nesses, becoming incorporated. Most farmers tion times last month denigrating hardwork- do not want the extra expense and paperwork ing rural workers such as shearers, fruit associated with being incorporated, and they pickers and farmhands and mocking a num- certainly do not want to pay tax at the corpo- ber of provisions of the awards that currently rate rate. To make matters worse, farmers govern their conditions of employment. The know that if they incorporate they will no minister’s attack on rural workers was not longer have access to the Farm Management only offensive but factually incorrect. The Deposits scheme. The so-called FMDs are award clauses that seemed to amuse this mil- only available, and can only be available, to lionaire minister, at the expense of relatively unincorporated bodies. So the government low-paid rural workers, were largely taken have found this all too hard and have decided from little-used state awards. Few, if any, of to ring fence the rural awards while they try the workers that the minister was making fun to find a path through this regulatory mess of of would actually be employed under the their own making. awards that he was quoting from. The fact is

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 59

The Leader of the Opposition has made a cal price from you at the next election. Be clear and unequivocal commitment to tear up mindful of this fact: as the lemmings on the and junk this awful piece of legislation. La- other side follow their Prime Minister down bor support a fair and productive industrial this path and as you seek to rip away the relations system in which those who work wages and conditions of working people, so hard are rewarded. We do not support a sys- they will exact a political price from you and tem that discriminates against and abuses take away the political lifestyle to which you working people. The Leader of the Opposi- have been accustomed. (Time expired) tion has outlined clearly Labor’s commit- The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hat- ments in relation to this bill, based on the ton)—Before I call the member for Fisher, I following fair principles: the need for a indicate that there was a half-hearted call strong safety net of minimum award wages from the member for Fisher and the member and conditions, the need for a strong inde- for Corangamite—without rising to their pendent umpire to ensure fair wages and feet—arguing that the word ‘imbecile’ conditions and to settle disputes, the right of should be withdrawn by the member for employees to bargain collectively for decent Corio. I point out that it was used in a gen- wages and conditions, the right of workers to eral manner and although, subjectively, peo- reject individual contracts which cut pay and ple might not like the word I think it is conditions and undermine collective bargain- hardly unparliamentary. ing and union representation, proper rights for Australian workers unfairly dismissed Mr SLIPPER (Fisher) (1.17 pm)—Thank and the right to join and be represented by a you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for at least consid- union. Those are the fair and reasonable ering the point that was made by the member principles on which Australia’s industrial for Corangamite and also by me. I do believe relations system will be based when the La- it is inappropriate because, far from being bor Party return to office. imbeciles on this side of the chamber, the In conclusion, I remind those opposite of government are far sighted and will not Labor history. We on this side of the House apologise for the Workplace Relations are great students of industrial history. The Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005, Labor Party was formed when a group of which in 2005 will usher in a new era in in- shearers got together and sat under a tree in a dustrial relations that will see higher pay for remote Queensland town and formed one of higher productivity. the great labour movements of the world. Rarely, though, does one get to enjoy de- That is the history of this nation. I say to bates in this place and, when I listened to the honourable members opposite: follow your honourable member for Corio, I was almost Prime Minister down this road, because able to close my eyes and imagine that this many of you are oncers. Many of you will was the way that the Labor Party used to be, not see a productive political life in this par- when the Labor Party was fighting the class liament. As you introduce this bill and vote warfare of the 1890s and uttering rhetoric to on it, be mindful of one fact of history: the the effect that our side of politics was trying Labor Party’s reason for being is exactly this to crush the workers. Indeed, I suppose you sort of situation. Have your day in the sun would say that the member for Corio is, in because, as you do, you swell the ranks of many respects, a living, breathing dinosaur the union movement and you increase the or troglodyte—and my friend the member resolve of working people to exact the politi-

CHAMBER 60 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 for Hunter is smiling, because he realises Perth—which goes for some pages—one can that his agreement with the member for see that the Labor Party is not really serious. Corio was made with some level of levity Even the Labor Party would appreciate that and mirth. I find it very difficult to under- the various items included in the second stand, though, how members of the Austra- reading amendment simply do not have any lian Labor Party in this place can, in 2005, validity. expect to be found relevant by the Australian This bill will better protect fair minimum people when they are taking attitudes which wages through the establishment of the Aus- are more than half a century old. tralian Fair Pay Commission. For the first It is also interesting to note that the Labor time, minimum conditions will be set out in Party continues to talk about how this gov- federal legislation. The safeguard of an Aus- ernment wants to crush unions. Workers have tralian fair pay and conditions standard will been voting with their feet for years. Cur- be introduced with the goal of protecting rently, this year, fewer than 20 per cent of workers during the agreement-bargaining workers in the private sector have opted to process. As well as simplifying the agree- join trade unions. That is voting with their ment-making process at the workplace, it feet. It is a telling indictment of the trade will bring in protections for those workers union movement, which I will concede has who are currently not sheltered by an agree- played a very important role in Australia’s ment. Currently, there is an unmet demand in history. But it indicates that the union the economy for workers with specific skills. movement is somewhat removed from the This is resulting in emerging labour short- people whom it seeks to represent. That is ages which need to be filled and Work why the legislation before the chamber is Choices will also help to fill that void. De- particularly important because it does, as the spite claims by opponents, the Australian name suggests, bring about work choices, Industrial Relations Commission will not be individual freedom and the ability for people closed down. Many reasonable people in the to sit down and talk with their employer community think that it should be, but it will about a better deal. It enables people to work not be closed down. It does have an ongoing out arrangements which are suitable to em- role under these new laws. ployers and employees and it loosens up the It is interesting to note the comparisons, system, while still ensuring that we have the which have been drawn by honourable Australian principle of a fair go enshrined in members of the Australian Labor Party in the legislation. this place, between the proposed new indus- The Workplace Relations Amendment trial relations system—which is being (Work Choices) Bill 2005 highlights a sys- brought into effect by the Workplace Rela- tem which both is fair for workers and will tions Amendment (Work Choices) Bill encourage economic growth for Australia as 2005—and the industrial relations systems a whole. Let us look at a few facts. If you administered by the Labour government of listened to members of the Australian Labor New Zealand, in particular, but also of the Party, you would believe that this govern- United Kingdom. By comparison with the ment is trying to crush workers and destroy legislation in the UK and New Zealand, this the ability of workers to get ahead and look legislation is really quite moderate. The La- after their families. When one considers the bor Party has suggested that in some way, items in the second reading amendment, shape or form the legislation in the United moved by the honourable member for Kingdom and New Zealand has not worked

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 61 and is not working. But I find it somewhat legislation will assist this businessman to curious that Labour governments have been build his business and it will assist him to in place in those two countries for a consid- create additional staff opportunities, so it is a erable period. However, there is such a con- win-win situation—a win for him, a win for sensus in the United Kingdom and New Zea- his business and, of course, also a win for his land that there has not been any serious employees. move to undo the important and meaningful The Work Choices legislation is giving reforms brought about which have seen the small businesses an opportunity for a fresh industrial relations systems in those countries beginning. When the new WorkChoices substantially transformed. booklet was released recently—the one with As you would understand, with an impor- the orange cover—a Sunshine Coast busi- tant piece of legislation like this, there has nessman was one of the first to enthusiasti- been a lot of feedback to individual honour- cally come into my office and pick up a able members from members of their con- copy. He has a small business with few staff. stituencies and, like other members, I have I believe one of his sons is one of his em- received a significant amount of positive ployees. He wanted the booklet so that he feedback about the changes. One business could begin drawing up workplace agree- owner—and I will not mention his name— ments with those staff. He sees the Work who operates a professional service business Choices legislation as a very positive thing in my electorate said that unfair dismissal for his business. It is a chance to sit down laws, as they currently stand at present, were with his workers, and together they can get having a detrimental effect on his company. things organised to their mutual advantage. He has had a problem with a staff member Earlier this year I was confronted by a but, under the legislation introduced by Mr large number of people who were concerned Brereton when he was the member for by the scare campaign run by the union Kingsford Smith and the Minister for Indus- movement and the Australian Labor Party. trial Relations, he has simply been unable to They wanted to know about the new indus- move this particular person on without leav- trial relations system. I hope that I was able ing himself open to a substantial claim for to allay their concerns. Certainly when this unfair dismissal. Yet this person has been legislation becomes law the sky will not fall undermining his business. This person has in. There will be increased flexibility, there been in effect the window of the opposition will be increased opportunity and there will within his business, and I think that it is ab- be an increased chance for employers and solutely unacceptable that businesses with employees to work out arrangements which fewer than 100 people are unable to get rid are to their mutual advantage. of people without having to face the difficul- The unions, I believe, should stand con- ties of Labor’s unfair unfair-dismissal law. demned because of the way that they have My constituent was particularly deflated undermined the confidence of people in the in June this year when he contacted my of- community through mounting this scare fice and was informed that the new work- campaign which, in effect, has frightened place relations system, the legislation we many people and has given people a lot of know as Work Choices, would not become concerns. I certainly appreciate the chance to law until early next year. I imagine the most talk to constituents, and I am sure I have likely commencement date is now to be 1 been able to allay the concerns of many of March or 1 April 2006. The Work Choices

CHAMBER 62 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 them, but it is politically and morally irre- Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (1.28 sponsible for the trade union movement, in pm)—For weeks now, Australians have been its own self-interest, to try to terrify the Aus- treated, while eating their cornflakes—or, in tralian community into opposition against my case, Vitabrits—to full-page ads which this very important and positive legislation scream, ‘Australia cannot stand still.’ We which we are currently discussing in the have a government which is telling us that chamber. Australia is standing still. The trouble is that Regrettably, because of the time con- for the past 10 years the Prime Minister has straints, members of the government have been trying to tell us the exact opposite: that been reduced to 10 minutes talking time—I the economy is forging ahead. To give the know the clock will not reflect that, but I House one quote, the Australian government certainly do not want to incur the ire of the placed an advertisement in the Economist, in whip. But I do want to stress that included in the edition dated 22 to 28 October, saying: the reforms, as I mentioned earlier, is the Although Australians are renowned for their re- major liberalisation of the unfair dismissal laxed and friendly demeanour, they are also laws which have held back jobs growth in highly skilled and boast one of the most produc- Australia. If I had my way, I would abolish tive work forces in the world. Benchmarked against other OECD nations, Australia’s produc- the unfair dismissal laws, even for businesses tivity has been consistently high, reflecting the with more than 100 employees, but that is widespread adoption of new technologies and not the position of the government. I believe, modern work practices. The rate of increase of though, that if this is logical for people who labour productivity was 2.1 per cent between employ fewer than 100 then it should be 1991 and 2004, and was one of the highest in the logical for people who employ more than OECD countries. It is also significant to note that 100. the number and impact of industrial disputes in What we are achieving is the goal of a na- Australia has plummeted. Since 1985, the number of working days lost through industrial disputes tional industrial relations system in 2005, has decreased on average by a sizable 89 per cent one which reflects the competitive reality of across all industries. the Australian economy. Many people on This was said by the government less than a both sides of politics have supported this month ago. When I was a kid there was a TV national industrial relations system. This show called Tell the truth and it had: ‘Will Work Choices legislation will build very the real Fred Smith please stand up?’ The strongly on the successful management by question here is: will the real John Howard the Howard-Costello government of this please stand up—the one who says Australia country’s economy over the past decade. We is moving forward or the one who says Aus- have performed well, but we can do even tralia is standing still? Frankly, that is one of better. I have lots more to say, but regrettably the key reasons why Australians are not buy- I do not have time at this opportunity to ex- ing this legislation: this idea that Australia press those sentiments. All I want to say is cannot stand still completely contradicts eve- that I reject the second reading amendment rything the Prime Minister has been saying moved by the honourable member for Perth for the past 10 years. and I commend the legislation to the House. I hope that it passes in a speedy way and that Of course that begs the question: do we it passes in the other place, because the bene- need this legislation at all? Paul Keating is fits for Australian businesses and workers quite right to point out that none of this is will be incredibly positive. necessary. Thanks to the enterprise bargain-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 63 ing reforms of the early 1990s, Australia has has since blamed Labor for. It took a decade of enjoyed well over a decade of strong produc- tax cuts and the Accord plus the recession to tivity growth, real wage rises and low infla- break John Howard’s 10 per cent inflation rate. To tion. The Prime Minister likes to take credit make 10 become 2. for these outcomes, but he owes them to the You would think that a two-decade outbreak of previous Labor government. Indeed, the leg- industrial peace and wages consistent with an acy that he left behind when the Fraser gov- inflation rate of 2 per cent to 3 per cent would be game, set and match for any reasonable person. ernment, of which he was Treasurer, tried to deregulate industrial relations was one of But not reasonable enough for this Prime confrontation and industrial dispute with a Minister. Back in 1995 John Howard secured wage-price spiral and inflation of 10 per a change of government by using the words cent, which was knocked down to two per ‘relaxed and comfortable’. I really think that cent only by the high interest rates of the is what won it for him back then when he 1980s. Why on earth would we want to try said he wanted to see Australia and Austra- that recipe again? As Paul Keating has writ- lians ‘relaxed and comfortable’. Even when ten: I, such a determinedly anti-Liberal person, heard those words, I thought they sounded The abandonment of the century-old centralised wage-fixing system by the Keating govern- pretty good. The question is whether, 10 ment in 1993 in favour of an enterprise bargain- years on, Australia is relaxed and comfort- ing system has led to productivity-based real able. No, people are tense and afraid. They wage increases of just on 20 per cent, while at the are tense and afraid about national security same time maintaining low inflation. and the threat of an attack on Australian soil. The fact is, the industrial relations system was The Prime Minister must accept some of the changed fundamentally in 1993 ... responsibility for that: he took this nation He says we are now: into war in Iraq, without the United Nations sanction, to deal with a threat from weapons in the 15th year of the expansion— of mass destruction which was non-existent and— and, in so doing, he has put Australia at average weekly earnings growth is running at a greater risk of terrorist attack. Australians are modest 3 to 4 per cent. A rate consistent with a 2 not relaxed and comfortable; they are tense per cent inflation rate. and fearful—and this Prime Minister has And in the context of 20 years of industrial contributed to that. peace. It is not just national security and the de- He says we should cast our minds back to bacle in Iraq. People are fearful about their that last attempt to reform the wage system living standards and opportunities for their when the now Prime Minister was Treasurer: children. They are mortgaged to the hilt. From 1979 to 1982 we had a wage explosion, They are extremely vulnerable to interest leading to 11 per cent inflation along with mas- rate rises; they simply cannot afford one. Yet sive industrial disputation. this government’s handling of foreign debt, That 11 per cent inflation rate with a real inter- the current account deficit, the trade deficit est rate of 3 to 4 per cent four gave Australia 14 and skills and infrastructure issues create per cent to 15 per cent interest rates through the constant speculation that the Reserve Bank 1980s; something— of Australia will indeed put up interest rates. the Prime Minister— That constant speculation leaves Australians tense and anxious. Then there is the pressure

CHAMBER 64 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 on family budgets from petrol price rises. of the bleeding obvious. Of course unlawful Families are now going without, just to try to dismissal is unlawful—that is what the word make ends meet. The Prime Minister says, ‘unlawful’ means. But what the Prime Minis- ‘Too bad. Sorry, there’s nothing we can do ter has been trying to do is to fudge and blur about that.’ In 10 years he has failed to get the distinction between unfair and unlawful. this country on the path to alternative fuels— Workers should understand very clearly natural gas, LPG and biofuels—and free us how things are going to work from now on. from our dependence on imported oil. So If the boss says, ‘You’re getting the sack be- much for ‘relaxed and comfortable’; we as a cause I don’t approve of your new religion,’ nation are tense and fearful. then you might well be able to take action. What about opportunities for our kids? But, if the boss is not quite that dopey and This is another area of abject government just says, ‘You’re getting the sack,’ and gives failure—cuts in training, flatlining in domes- no reason at all, there is nothing you can do tic tertiary student places and bringing in about that; you are gone. So do not be skilled migrants from overseas. They have fooled. This bill takes away your protection quadrupled skilled migration. The idea is that from unfair dismissal. It does not matter that is going to solve all of our problems. whether you are doing a good job or not, if Parents and young people are not relaxed and you speak up at work about something that is comfortable about places for their children at wrong then look out. This law will change university and TAFE. They are tense and the balance of power in the workplace and anxious, and tens of thousands who are now the Liberal Party intends it to. That is what it sitting for exams around the country will is on about. This Prime Minister never was miss out on university places. on about relaxed and comfortable. He always Against this background of fear and anxi- was on about changing the balance of power ety, the government injects these new work- in the workplace. place relations changes. Can the Prime Min- The same thing applies to working at ister explain to the House and to the five mil- nights and on weekends. This Liberal- lion Australians who will be able to be National Party government always claims to sacked by their employer, without their em- be great supporters of the family and of fam- ployer giving any reason at all if this bill is ily life, but have a look at its actions, not at passed, just how it is that scrapping unfair its words. Nothing could be more destructive dismissal provisions will make Australian of family life and husbands, wives and chil- workers more relaxed and comfortable? The dren than not spending time together, not Prime Minister wakes up and asks, ‘How do being able to see each other and do family I make Australians more relaxed and com- things. It is nights, weekends and public fortable? I know: I will make it easier for the holidays that best provide those opportuni- boss to sack them.’ What a genius! The ties. So, if a husband or a wife has to work Prime Minister has been trying to fool Aus- night times, weekends or public holidays, tralians into thinking we should not be wor- that is damaging to family life. That is why ried about this. He has been spending $50 we have things like overtime, penalty pay- million of our money—your petrol taxes at ments, shift allowances and the like: firstly, work—on advertisements with words like so that workers who do have to work odd ‘Unlawful dismissal will still be unlawful’. hours get properly compensated for their You have got to wonder how many millions contribution and that hardship is properly of dollars have been spent on that statement recognised and rewarded and, secondly, so

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 65 that employers are encouraged to organise ions are attacked, the Industrial Relations their work so as to minimise these intrusions Commission is undermined and awards are on family life and are discouraged from forc- stripped. But does the government genuinely ing their workers to work nights and week- want third parties out? In fact, no, the Minis- ends. ter for Employment and Workplace Relations But these laws seek to knock over penalty has been given unprecedented powers— rates, overtime and shift allowances and to powers to intervene, to approve and to not make workers at the boss’s beck and call, approve. What is the minister if not a third hanging around by the phone, or with the party? So all this talk about flexibility and mobile always on, able to be summoned at a getting rid of third parties turns out to be moment’s notice. This is not relaxed and nonsense. comfortable, but it is what the Prime Minis- Then there is the attack on the minimum ter has always been on about. He has never wage. The government points out that real been a friend of the battlers; he has only ever wages have risen in the past decade, and so posed as one. That is why the churches are so they have. But that is due to the productivity hostile to these bills. They understand the increases driven by the Keating govern- impact on Sundays and on family life. The ment’s enterprise bargaining reforms of the Prime Minister’s lame cry in the chamber I early 1990s and no thanks to this govern- heard earlier that there is no such thing as a ment, which indeed has argued against Catholic view on this bill misses the point minimum wage rises at every opportunity. If absolutely. it had had its way, the minimum wage would Time and time again, the provisions of the be much less than it is now, and if it gets its bill give the lie to the Orwellian propaganda way the minimum wage will fall. As Bob that has accompanied it. We have heard in Hawke said, what we are seeing is the the government advertising that they are on Americanisation of our industrial relations about simplifying the industrial relations. system. If this succeeds, it will create a gen- They want to give us a simpler system. I eration of working poor, and an underclass, would point out to the House that we have the existence of which was revealed so here something like 1,250 pages of bill and graphically in America in the aftermath of explanatory memorandum, something which Hurricane Katrina. has been prepared by dozens of law firms, This government talks about the threat to something which will not simplify the sys- our industry coming from the increasing tem but will complicate it, just as the GST economic success of India and China. But its complicated the tax system. It will be a law- solution is to compete on the basis of lower- yer’s picnic. ing our wages to theirs. We say that is in the The government says we will have a Fair teeth of this country’s best interests. This Pay Commission, but fairness is out as a country’s best interests lie in competing on consideration. Under the Australian Indus- the basis of high skills and high technology. trial Relations Commission it has always That is why the Howard government’s fail- been in, but now it has been expressly de- ure to invest seriously in higher education leted. Then we have had the government and failure to invest in university places, in talking about getting third parties out, mak- skills training and in apprenticeships is sell- ing things flexible between employee and ing this country out and is shamefully short- employer. In the name of this objective, un- sighted.

CHAMBER 66 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

I want to use the remaining time available ing campaign. This is a shameful waste of to me to talk about the scandalous $50 mil- public money. lion taxpayer funded advertising campaign Indeed, in the House last Thursday I surrounding these bills. With apologies to raised the fact that I have been advised that Winston Churchill, never before in the field documents relating to Mr Horton have been of advertising has so much money been handed to the Australian Taxation Office and hosed up against a wall by so few in so short that he has made payments to international a time. Spending at the rate of in excess of bank accounts when working for overseas $1 million a day—taking a cigarette lighter clients. It really is too cute by half that this to public money. It is not as though, how- massive, lucrative contract given out by Lib- ever, some people have not benefited. When eral Party insiders just happens to go to the I asked the Prime Minister a question yester- Liberal Party’s own advertising team. The day, he failed to explain to the House why it public wants to know how these contracts was that the Department of Employment and were awarded, they want to see the docu- Workplace Relations awarded an $800,000 ments and they want to know what checks contract to the company Salmat Pty Ltd to the government has to ensure that contracts distribute booklets that the community sim- do not go to people who are engaged in tax ply does not want. Over five million of these avoidance. There has been no denial from Mr unwanted WorkChoices booklets are now Horton, no denial from the government and languishing in warehouses. They will end up nothing from the tax office after I raised this as food for worms and silverfish. That same in the parliament last Thursday. company, Salmat Pty Ltd, and one of its di- We have a secretive political gang known rectors are shown by the Australian Electoral as the Ministerial Committee on Government Commission to have donated almost Communications—some of the Liberal $120,000 to the Liberal Party during the lat- Party’s insiders in terms of campaigning. est disclosure period. Nice work if you can They award the advertising contracts and it is get it. a secretive process. It is time the government The Liberal Party advertiser Dewey Hor- came clean as to how this contract has been ton, Ted Horton’s company, was awarded a awarded. Has it been awarded on the basis of $2 million contract to produce six million favours for services rendered? I think the WorkChoices booklets, almost half a million Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans, was quite of which have been pulped. Mr Horton, it right to express his concern about the poten- turns out, is subcontracting work to another tial for corruption inherent in these arrange- Liberal Party advertiser, Mark Pearson. ments. It is absolutely extraordinary that we These two regularly work on Liberal Party can have $50 million of taxpayers’ money advertising campaigns. The Prime Minister wasted on a campaign designed to convince arrogantly refuses to release any documenta- the Australian people of something they do tion relating to Dewey Horton’s advertising not want. It is not about information; it is contracts with the Howard government. In about propaganda. I have presented a private the last couple of days I have lodged free- member’s bill designed to straighten out this dom of information requests to seek to lift whole area of government advertising and to the veil of secrecy from the contractual ar- ensure that there is proper scrutiny based on rangements underpinning the Howard gov- the Auditor-General’s guidelines. ernment’s failed industrial relations advertis-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 67

Let me conclude with one final observa- sion with providing a more competitive in- tion. Labor’s fight is not with employers; it is dustrial relations environment. They accused with the government. I want to make one him of championing this throughout the point for the benefit of Qantas. I have heard whole of his public life. Mr Deputy their management cheering on the govern- Speaker—guilty. The Prime Minister has ment’s industrial relations changes, yet at the championed more industrial relations flexi- same time they are lobbying against other bility for the whole of his political career. airlines being given improved access to their The Australian people have known it—they more lucrative routes. I say to Qantas: if this knew it in 1996, they knew it in 1998, they government applies the deregulation blow- knew it in 2001 and they knew it again in torch to your workers and you cheer, and 2004. They know that the Prime Minister then it comes to apply that same deregulation stands for a simpler, more productive indus- blowtorch to you and you want to sook about trial relations system and that this is abso- it, do not expect any sympathy from me be- lutely at the heart of his core beliefs. cause it will not be there. Perhaps I could take a moment to contrast Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (1.48 pm)—It is this with the current Leader of the Opposi- with great pleasure that I rise to support the tion. What does the Prime Minister’s deter- Workplace Relations Amendment (Work mination say about the member for Brand? Choices) Bill 2005. It is legislation that will Twenty-five years in the parliament—and I help secure the prosperity of my constituents congratulate him for that—but I could not in Stirling as well as the prosperity of the tell you one thing that he actually stands for. wider Australian community. The debate I know what he is against, but I do not know around this legislation has allowed both par- what he stands for. What policies does he ties in this chamber to show their true col- champion? If he were Prime Minister, what ours. We have seen a government that still set of principles would he use to frame pub- has the drive to implement reform that bene- lic policy? I am a keen follower of Australian fits the Australian community, a government politics, but I could not tell you anything that pursues the national interest as opposed about the views of the member for Brand, to vested interests. At the same time, we and that is the tragedy of the modern Labor have seen an opposition that will do and say Party—rudderless, without a guiding set of anything to protect what is always their bot- principles and led by a leader who cannot tom line, the only thing that this opposition actually decide why it is that he is in politics. really care about—maintaining the privi- Because I have limited time I want to ad- leged position of the union movement within dress one particular aspect of this bill that is the Australian industrial relations system. I very close to my heart, and that is the unfair suppose we should be thankful that they have dismissal laws that have for over a decade at least found something that they can all stopped Australians from getting jobs. The agree on. fact that we have tried to pass this measure I have heard some plainly ridiculous sug- through the parliament on many other occa- gestions about the legislation that is before sions but that it has been denied to the Aus- this House, but I was particularly drawn to tralian people represents a great disconnect the opposition’s efforts in question time yes- that occurs between some in this place and terday. Many members took the opportunity the real world of ordinary Australians, who to state their view that this legislation is the have been begging for some workplace culmination of the Prime Minister’s obses- flexibility and cannot imagine why such sen-

CHAMBER 68 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 sible measures have never been passed. The the clergy and academia, Labor members unfair dismissal laws, as they exist, stop Aus- should go and talk to the small businesses in tralians from getting jobs—it really is as their electorates. They should go down to simple as that. How anyone elected to repre- one of the local thoroughfares and talk to the sent their constituents could fail to support manager of the cafe, the owner of the local measures that contribute to employment truly restaurant, the grocer or the newsagent be- beggars belief. Yet the Labor Party has voted cause what they will find is that there is a lot against our efforts to repeal these laws over of confusion and fear about employing staff 40 times. I listened carefully to the rationale and a concern that you are stuck with staff for doing so, which has been outlined many once you employ them, regardless of how times in this chamber, and it appears to be they perform. The intricacies of the current the Labor Party’s view that the unfair dis- laws are lost on business men and women missal laws do not hamper employment. But who do not have the time to study the current there is overwhelming, independent evidence legislation. Instead, they do not employ peo- to the contrary. ple for fear of falling foul of the complexities Mr Adams—Where? inherent in the current regime. Mr KEENAN—I am very happy to tell The detailed record keeping and extensive you. The Melbourne Institute of Applied counselling required under the present re- Economic and Social Research, in a study gime might be good policy in the theoretical published in 2002, estimated that the current world of industrial relations academics, but it unfair dismissal laws cost small business totally ignores the real world of individuals $1.3 billion per year and come at the expense and families who are struggling to make a of 77,000 jobs. That is 77,000 people that living and cannot afford to waste time on members opposite are happy to throw on the unnecessary bureaucracy. It is not rocket scrap heap. In a survey conducted by the science: the more restrictive you make the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce legal framework around employment, the over half the businesses surveyed said the more you will reduce the demand for labour. unfair dismissal laws had discouraged them Simple economics tells us that making some- from recruiting new staff. Australian Busi- thing more costly to do—in this case em- ness Limited found that 84 per cent of small ployment—will result in an obvious drop in business employers were concerned about demand. Small businesses do not have a the potential for an unfair dismissal action huge amount of time to dispense on human when hiring new staff. Research done in resources. They cannot afford the large hu- other parts of the country backs this up. Even man resources departments or the in-house the Victorian Trades Hall Council found that lawyers that are required to negotiate the 39 per cent of respondents believe that unfair maze of legislation surrounding industrial dismissal laws have affected their business. law. Yet the Labor Party refuse to acknowledge Estimates suggest that an unfair dismissal this overwhelming evidence. Instead, they claim costs $3,600 and around 63 hours of have marched into this chamber and cited management time for a small business to out-of-touch professors and even Catholic defend. This is time and money that most bishops in support of their case. But none of small businesses can ill afford. There is abso- these, I respectfully suggest, have ever run a lutely no protection for employers to prevent small business. Rather than communing with vexatious claims from being made. Disgrun- tled employees can use the existing provi-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 69 sions to blackmail their former employer, like to end my speech where I started, and who often finds it easier just to settle the that is by saying that this Prime Minister has claim rather than spend time and money de- stood for a more flexible industrial relations fending what may be baseless allegations. system for the whole of his public life. This There is evidence to suggest that these stands in stark contrast to the current Leader laws have their worst effect on the long-term of the Opposition. He has a chance in ques- unemployed, young job seekers and workers tion time to stand up and tell us, after 25 who come from minority groups. Given the years in public life, something that he actu- perceived risks that would be associated with ally believes in—a core principle that he employing these groups, employers who are would be prepared to defend if he were confused and fearful of the existing regime Prime Minister. He could explain to us the will be more likely to take a chance on a less sorts of things that he believes in and the marginalised group. I hear talk from Labor sorts of qualities that he would champion if these days about economic credibility, and a he were to become Prime Minister. I say to new-found sense of responsibility following the Leader of the Opposition: the parliament the experiment of the previous opposition is full—you have an opportunity. You can leader. Yet Labor members have, astonish- stand up in question time and tell us one ingly, risen to oppose these much-needed thing that you would do if you were made reforms. Prime Minister of this country. Stand up and tell the Australian people what sorts of prin- Although these laws are attractive at face ciples you would use when you were defin- value, you always need to be mindful of the ing public policy. ultimate effects of such legislation. Because these laws have been in place for many This side of the House is proud of the re- years, it is not difficult for any member to be cord of our Prime Minister in standing for just that, by actually going to talk to the workplace flexibility for the whole of his small businesses within their electorates. public life. It is now incumbent upon the They would tell them that these oppressive Leader of the Opposition to stand up and tell restrictions cost Australians jobs. The knee- us something that he has stood for for the jerk reaction of the Labor Party in opposing whole of his public life, and to tell us one these measures appears to be rooted in the thing that he would champion if he were outdated notions of class warfare, of the em- Prime Minister. ployer as the enemy. Labor assumes that The SPEAKER—Order! It being ap- businesspeople will unfairly treat their em- proximately 2 pm, the debate is interrupted ployees if given half a chance. This is a disin accordance with standing order 97. The graceful slur on hardworking Australian op- debate may be resumed at a later hour. erators of small, medium and large busi- MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS nesses. Anyone who has employed staff Mr HOWARD (Bennelong—Prime Min- knows that letting one of them go is perhaps ister) (2.00 pm)—I inform the House that the one of the most horrible tasks that an em- Minister for Veterans’ Affairs will be absent ployer ever has to perform. It is not some- from question time today. She is attending a thing that is done lightly and it is always an family funeral. The Minister for Foreign Af- unpleasant task. fairs will answer questions on her behalf. I With the limited time I have got left— also inform the House that the Minister for with the approach of question time—I would Small Business and Tourism will be absent

CHAMBER 70 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 from question time today and tomorrow due process of being answerable to the parlia- to continuing personal commitments. The ment every day, unlike my predecessor, Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources whom the Leader of the Opposition served as will answer questions on her behalf. Leader of the House. This government and QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE this Prime Minister have been more answerable and more accountable to the parliament Workplace Relations of this nation than any government since Mr BEAZLEY (2.00 pm)—My question World War II. is to the Prime Minister. It is now 21 days South Asia Earthquake since I first challenged the Prime Minister to a national industrial relations debate. Why Mr LINDSAY (2.03 pm)—My question does this Prime Minister continue to hide is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, behind— would you inform the House about Austra- lia’s assistance to Pakistan in the wake of the Opposition members interjecting— recent terrible earthquake? The SPEAKER—The Leader of the Op- Mr HOWARD—I thank the member for position will start his question again. No-one Herbert for the question. As the House will could hear that question. be aware, the earthquake that hit Pakistan on Mr BEAZLEY—With pleasure. My 8 October has represented an enormous hu- question is to the Prime Minister. It is now manitarian disaster. It has killed about 21 days since I first challenged him to a na- 86,000 people and injured some 70,000, and tional industrial relations debate. Why does more than three million people are homeless. he continue to hide behind $50 million worth The House will be aware of assistance that of expenditure of taxpayers’ money on Lib- the government has already announced, eral propaganda, 1,200 pages of extreme leg- which I will return to in a moment. But I can islation, six million leaflets and a parliamen- inform the House that recent urgent calls, by tary guillotine to kill off the debate? When the Pakistan government, international relief are you going to agree to come out of hiding agencies and the United Nations, have been and debate us on national television—the made to provide further assistance in view of debate that you avoided during the election the onset of harsh winter conditions and the campaign? worsening humanitarian crisis. Mr HOWARD—In reply to the Leader of In response to these appeals I am pleased the Opposition, it is now nine years and eight to announce that the government has decided months since this government was elected to to send to Pakistan an Australian Defence office— Force medical team. This team will provide Opposition members interjecting— vital primary health care services in the The SPEAKER—Order! earthquake zone around Muzaffarabad. It will consist of approximately 140 personnel, Mr HOWARD—It is passing strange that including medical specialists, logistic staff somebody who is arguing for open debate and helicopter and support personnel. This orchestrates the disruption of an answer. I follows the dispatch of a reconnaissance remind the Leader of the Opposition that it is mission last week which began planning for nine years and eight months since this gov- this deployment. The Pakistan government ernment was elected to office. It is nine years has already welcomed our decision. The and eight months since the Prime Minister of medical team will leave for Pakistan by the this country resumed the correct democratic

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 71 end of the week. It is anticipated that it will tiny and without any sort of mandate at all. It be in Pakistan for approximately 90 days. may be the case that the Prime Minister has The cost is in the order of $18 million to $20 talked about these things for 20 years, but he million. This assistance is on top of the did not talk about them in the last election amount of $14.6 million in earthquake re- campaign when these issues, like all great lated assistance, which the Australian gov- issues of the day, were debated before the ernment has already provided. Australian people. There is a simple solution The Australian government has also sent to that, and it would be done in any other to affected areas blankets, sleeping bags, country: he should be prepared to front the water purification tablets and medicines, in- people of this nation and explain what it is cluding tetanus vaccines. I know that all that he intends for them. Australians will wish the ADF medical team There is another reason why this ought to well. It will be providing very important hu- take place. I was at Canberra Hospital this manitarian on-the-ground assistance to the morning talking to the women—mainly people who have suffered so much. During women—who are on the nursing staff and the severe winter months it will make a sig- the hospital support staff, doing an abso- nificant contribution to relieving the suffer- lutely tremendous job. They wanted to know ing of the people of Pakistan affected by the why their hard work in the community was earthquake. I wish the mission well. I know going to be rewarded by the undermining of it will go with the support and good wishes their shift allowances, the undermining of the of all Australians. penalty rates. ‘Does this government,’ they Workplace Relations said, ‘have any understanding of the difficulties that are experienced by balancing work Mr PRICE (2.06 pm)—Under standing and family in the work force as it now order 99, I refer the Leader of the Opposition stands?’ They wanted an explanation, be- to his notice of motion No. 40, which ap- cause they were all, to a woman, emphatic pears on today’s Notice Paper, concerning that they had not had it during the course of the challenge he has issued to the Prime the last election campaign. Minister to agree to a national televised debate on the government’s extreme industrial What we have had is $50 million worth of relations changes. Can the Leader of the Op- saccharine advertising from our political opposition explain why his motion is urgent? ponents, more than was spent in the entirety Are there any alternative views? of the last federal election, spreading simple deceits about the policy that is coming into Mr BEAZLEY—Can I have your indul- place. We have had 1,200 pages worth of this gence, Mr Speaker, to begin by saying that I extreme legislation and a parliamentary guil- support the initiative of the government in lotine killing off the debate, and there are six relation to the aid to Pakistan. They are million misleading pamphlets of spin, most clearly in desperate straits, and they deserve of them sitting in a warehouse now. I am told the support of all nations of goodwill, par- that those six million pamphlets are not aid ticularly those of reasonable wealth and for a debate; they are for seminars. I ask you! standing like us. Let us say we distribute 20 of those pam- But that same support obviously does not phlets per seminar. That means you can all extend to the extreme laws that this govern- look forward, over the course of the next two ment is bringing in without proper debate in years, to 300,000 seminars around Australia this place, without real debate and real scru-

CHAMBER 72 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 where these pamphlets will be delivered to Mr BEAZLEY—The nurses I met today, you. all Australian workers, were making it clear. Can’t you just see it in the highways and They wanted a continuation of their rights byways of our country towns? ‘The big top’s and conditions, Aussie style. coming to town, Daddy. Take us down to the Mr Pyne interjecting— circus.’ They will get down to that circus and The SPEAKER—Order! The member for there daddy will learn about how he is going Sturt is warned! to be easily sacked, and mummy will learn Mr BEAZLEY—They want to take our about how she will no longer have family- kids to cricket and netball on a Saturday friendly hours as she looks after her children, morning. They want to be upskilled, not un- and the children will learn what a rotten time derpaid. They want a fair go, fair dinkum, they will have when they go to negotiate fair pay. That is what they want. They want their first lot of pay. an industrial relations system with a fair um- Mr Baldwin—Mr Speaker, I raise a point pire to make sure they get it. That is exactly of order. At what point does an answer be- what is demanded by the Australian workers. come a speech in a debate? I will tell you what we are going to do The SPEAKER—There is no point of or- with this bill. We cannot get a debate in this der. place, but we are going to debate this with Mr BEAZLEY—I say to my friend from the other side of the House all down the next Paterson: we all learn by example. We abso- two years. What we will be saying to the lutely know who the clowns will be at this Australian people is that, as far as we are seminar. We will have the Leader of the concerned, when we get into office we are House there with a red nose and a funny hat going to take this bill, and we know exactly on as he dances around before the public of where to put it: right in the bin here. this country, continuing with them, face to DISTINGUISHED VISITORS face, the misleading that he does, but we will The SPEAKER (2.13 pm)—I inform the not see the Prime Minister. He will not get House that we have present in the gallery out there and debate this before the Austra- this afternoon the Victorian Minister for lian people, either on his own or with me. It Manufacturing and Export, the Hon. Andre is something that the democracy of this na- Haermeyer. On behalf of the House, I extend tion demands. So the government ought to to him a very warm welcome. back off this, because the Australian people are sending them a clear-cut message. Honourable members—Hear, hear! Government members interjecting— QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE The SPEAKER—Order! Members on my National Security right! Mr BROADBENT (2.13 pm)—My ques- Mr BEAZLEY—They do not want action is on terrorism and it is addressed to the countants to do their bargaining for them. Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the min- They do not want to compete with China and ister inform the House what policies other India on wages. countries are employing in their fight against terrorism? Mr Pyne interjecting— Mr DOWNER—First, I thank the hon- The SPEAKER—The member for Sturt! ourable member for his question and his in-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 73 terest. I think we would all agree that the pects for extended periods of preventative Attorney-General is doing an outstanding job detention. with the new terrorism legislation. This leg- These types of measures have been intro- islation, of course, is essential in order to duced in other somewhat like-minded coun- provide appropriate protections for the Aus- tries, countries with great traditions of free- tralian people. Whilst there understandably is dom of speech and expression and with a debate about these issues in our own country, broad disposition towards freedom. There is it is worth people understanding that these no doubt that those countries realise they issues are being addressed in a very robust have to take decisive and strong action way in what you might broadly describe as against terrorism, and we must do the same other like-minded countries. thing in this country—and we are doing the In the United Kingdom, for example, the same thing in this country. The people of the detention of terrorist suspects without charge countries that I have just referred to want can be extended to 14 days under the Terror- their governments and their parliaments to ism Act 2000. It is also worth noting that the provide appropriate protection, and in this admittedly rather controversial but recently country likewise the Australian people ex- introduced Terrorism Bill 2005 seeks to in- pect this parliament to provide appropriate crease that period of detention without protection to the Australian people. charges to up to three months. Workplace Relations In the United States, noncitizens may be Mr STEPHEN SMITH (2.16 pm)—My detained indefinitely if the Attorney-General question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the has reasonable grounds to believe that they Prime Minister to his comment on The 7.30 are a danger to national security, and deten- Report on Monday night about his extreme tion is subject to renewal every six months. industrial relations changes being something The United States also sought to invoke their that he has ‘believed in for more than two witness provisions in relation to suspected decades’. Does the Prime Minister recall terrorists. These provisions allow for the ar- saying in this place on 29 April 1992: rest and detention of persons whose testi- ... such matters as penalty rates, ... overtime, holi- mony is material in criminal proceedings day loadings and all of those things ... ought to be where it is shown it is impractical to secure matters for negotiation. their presence by subpoena. There is no re- Isn’t this the effect of page 371 of the Work- quirement in the United States that the per- place Relations Amendment (Work Choices) son be charged with a criminal offence, and Bill 2005, which allows overtime, leave release of the material witness may be de- loadings, shift allowances, penalty rates and layed for a reasonable period until their all of those things to be lost at the stroke of a deposition can be taken. pen, without compensation, through the abo- In France the system provides for terrorist lition of the no disadvantage test? Prime suspects to be detained for up to four days Minister, isn’t it the case that your extreme and, once a person has been charged, it al- changes are not about Australia’s future but lows for pre-trial investigative detention for about your past? up to three years. The charge of criminal as- The SPEAKER—In calling the Prime sociation relating to a terrorist enterprise is Minister, I say that he can ignore the last part also frequently used to justify holding sus- of that question.

CHAMBER 74 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, I actually The SPEAKER—The honourable mem- wanted to answer that. The answer to that is ber for Denison will resume his seat. no. In relation to penalty rates and descrip- Mr HOWARD—The quote continues: tions of the legislation, let me make two ... and that produces social dislocation more than points. In relation to penalty rates the posi- anything else. tion is that, if an employee is covered by an At the end of the day, guns are a symptom of award, that award provides penalty rates. If that process. an employee is negotiating an agreement, unless the agreement expressly removes or Mr Beazley—I rise on a point of order, modifies the penalty rates, the penalty rates Mr Speaker. It goes to the point of relevance. applying in the relevant award will by de- This has no relevance to the question. As he fault operate. knows, his bill then had a couple of hundred amendments made to it in the Senate. It is The member for Perth inaccurately de- not the bill that passed— scribed this legislation as ‘extreme’. It is not extreme legislation. The great problem that The SPEAKER—The Leader of the Op- the member for Perth has—and it is very position will resume his seat. The honourable similar to the problem the Leader of the Op- the Prime Minister has the call. position has—is that we have heard those Mr HOWARD—He went on to say: descriptions before. I have done a little bit of At the end of the day, guns are a symptom of that research about what the Leader of the Oppo- process. sition has said. Bear in mind that what the The then Leader of the Opposition in the Leader of the Opposition is now defending is Senate, Senator Faulkner, had this to say: the present industrial relations system, which The social costs of implementing these meas- was legislated in 1996. That is what he is ures will have a devastating effect on families in now defending. The Leader of the Opposi- Australia ... Thousands upon thousands of Austra- tion is defending the 1996 system. But let me lian workers have sweated blood to achieve con- remind the House of what the Leader of the ditions— Opposition had to say in 1996. I invite the Ms King interjecting— House to listen, because these words, the The SPEAKER—The member for Bal- words of the Leader of the Opposition, will larat is warned! sound very familiar. This is what he had to say: Mr HOWARD—The quote continues: ... the kind of low wage, low productivity indus- ... that allow parents to have time with their kids, trial wasteland we see in the United States and to have decent holidays, to have income security, New Zealand where jobs can be bought at bargain to have leave to look after their children and to basement rates ... straight down the American have weekends and recreation time. road on industrial relations legislation, straight The Leader of the Opposition forecast doom down the American road on wages justice, and and disaster in 1996. Nine and a half years that produces— later we have the lowest unemployment in 30 Mr Kerr—I rise on a point of order, Mr years, unparalleled prosperity, great produc- Speaker. The laws that the Prime Minister is tivity increases and a situation where we referring to did not pass in the form proposed have— by the government. They were stopped in the Mr Beazley—I rise on a point of order on Senate. relevance, Mr Speaker. He is not discussing the question that was put to him by Mr

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 75

Smith. Nine and a half years later you have clearly. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, control of the Senate; you did not have it terrorism is everybody’s enemy. Yesterday’s then. events were not targeted at the Muslim The SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is community; they were targeted at people in order. who were alleged to have been involved in the commission of a criminal act. I want to Mr HOWARD—The Australian people make it very clear that the Muslim commu- are better off than they were under you. nity has made a very important contribution National Security to the development of this nation. We should Mr BAKER (2.22 pm)—My question is remember that a large number of Muslims addressed to the Attorney-General. Is the themselves have been victims of terrorist Attorney-General aware of the response from attacks around the world. This government the community to yesterday’s police and se- will continue to work with the Muslim com- curity agency operations? Are there methods munity against those who pervert their relig- by which the public can assist with informa- ion to justify their deadly intentions. tion? Finally, I encourage anyone in the com- Mr RUDDOCK—I thank the honourable munity who has relevant information to bear member for Braddon for his question, be- in mind that the hotline is available. The na- cause there has been a very significant re- tional security hotline 1800 number is very sponse to yesterday’s events from various easy to remember; it is 1800 123400. sections of the Australian community. One of DISTINGUISHED VISITORS the areas that has been obvious has been the The SPEAKER—I inform the House that community’s desire to assist authorities in we have present in the gallery this afternoon relation to their investigations. This has been members of the Joint Committee on Educa- reflected in the number of calls to the nation and Science from the Irish Houses of tional security hotline. After yesterday’s po- Oireachtas. On behalf of the House, I extend lice and security operations, the number of a very warm welcome to the members. calls to the hotline doubled to 240. Normally, about half of the calls to the hotline are from Honourable members—Hear, hear! people seeking to provide information to the QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE authorities but, significantly, yesterday close Workplace Relations to 80 per cent were to provide information Mr STEPHEN SMITH (2.25 pm)—My about suspicious activities and this trend is question is again to the Prime Minister and it continuing. Importantly, I am advised by the follows on from The 7.30 Report quote that Australian Federal Police that a preliminary he has believed in these changes for more assessment suggests that a significant num- than two decades. Does the Prime Minister ber of calls provided very useful information. recall that, following the release of the Lib- Of course, if only one of these calls provides eral Party’s Fightback proposal in 1991, information that prevents a terrorist attack, there came Jobsback in October 1992? I have the hotline will have been justified. had to dust off my copy. Isn’t it the case that But there are also some concerns that op- the 1992 Liberal Party Jobsback policy pro- erations in which the police and security posed a minimum hourly rate of pay, four agencies were engaged have targeted in some weeks annual leave, two weeks sick leave, way particular parts of our Australian com- 12 months unpaid maternity leave and no munity. I want to make this point very

CHAMBER 76 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 protection for shift allowances, leave load- Economy ings, penalty rates and all those other things Mr TICEHURST (2.27 pm)—My ques- referred to in my earlier question? Prime tion is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Minister, isn’t this approach of October 1992 Treasurer update the House on recent data on reflected precisely in part VA, pages 65 to the Australian economy? What does this data 159, of your bill? Prime Minister, when will indicate? you finally admit that your extreme indus- Mr COSTELLO—I thank the honour- trial relations changes have nothing to do able member for Dobell for his question. with our nation’s future and everything to do Today the Westpac Melbourne Institute re- with your past? leased its consumer sentiment survey, which Mr HOWARD—I thank the member for showed that, in the month just past, con- Perth for the question. I remember December sumer sentiment rose by nine per cent. That 1992 very vividly. I remember the sense of was a strong bounce back from the large fall despair and hopelessness that pervaded the in September. It bounced back to be above community. I remember that we had an un- the average—the 100 mark—at 107.6 in No- employment level of around a million. I vember. Probably the main reason for the seem to remember that the current Leader of bounce back in consumer sentiment was the the Opposition was in charge of employment belief that petrol prices have at least stabi- matters at the time. lised. Also, there was good news overnight Mr Stephen Smith interjecting— that the world oil price has dipped just mar- The SPEAKER—Order! The member for ginally below $US60 a barrel, which I think Perth! will be received as good news by Australian consumers. Mr HOWARD—I remember a great deal about December 1992. Mr Speaker, bear in mind that, in the Sep- tember quarter, the all capital average for the Mr Stephen Smith interjecting— petrol price was around 119c; last week it The SPEAKER—Order! The member for was at 118.4c. If prices remain around these Perth! levels, there should be no contribution to the Mr HOWARD—If the member for Perth consumer price index for the December wants to debate Labor’s past, we will be de- quarter from an increase in petrol prices. Of lighted to accommodate him. course, we hope that petrol prices decline in Mr Stephen Smith interjecting— the course of the quarter and, indeed, that oil prices stay low. We know they will vary ac- The SPEAKER—Order! The member for cording to climatic conditions, in North Perth is warned! America in particular as it comes through the Mr HOWARD—I say more specifically northern winter, but we do hope that oil to the member for Perth: I am very familiar prices will come back. with the provisions of that policy, which I We also have housing finance figures re- took to the Australian people again. What we leased today, which show that the total value are debating now is the policy that we have of housing finance commitments rose by 3.2 presented to the parliament and I would be per cent in September and owner-occupied very interested to hear some questions on it commitments increased by 3.7 per cent. The from the member for Perth. figures today for housing finance also show more welcome good news: first home buyers

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 77 are continuing to re-enter the housing mar- ment’s WorkChoices booklet have been de- ket. The number of loans to first home buy- livered by courier to a school in northern ers has been above the long-term average New South Wales, including orders ad- now for seven consecutive months. The dressed to such bogus organisations as the number of first home buyers taking out loans Indonesian Society for the Prevention of was a little more than 10,000 in September. Cruelty to Pandas? Prime Minister, how do That is welcome news—first home buyers you justify such wasteful pandemonium? are returning to the market, house prices are Mr HOWARD—Perhaps the order was stabilising and prospects for taking a loan are placed by Chris from Waramanga. good, because employment is strong and Workplace Relations interest rates are still at near historical lows. For all of those first home buyers that are Mr BARRESI (2.33 pm)—My question now coming into the market, there is a vari- is addressed to the Minister for Employment able mortgage interest rate closer to seven and Workplace Relations. Would the minister per cent than 17 per cent, which was the inform the House of the attitude of busi- situation back in the late-1980s under the nesses and employees to the new workplace Labor Party. relations system? Are there any alternative views? Mr Tanner interjecting— Mr ANDREWS—I thank the member for The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Deakin for his question and acknowledge his Melbourne! leadership of the backbench in his chairman- Mr Tanner—Where’s overall housing af- ship of the government’s employment and fordability at? workplace relations committee. Australian The SPEAKER—The member for Mel- businesses, particularly small businesses, bourne is warned! know that these workplace relations reforms Mr COSTELLO—Dare I raise for the will be good for business and good for their member for Melbourne where the Labor staff. There has been widespread support Party had interest rates in the late 1980s. I from business organisations in Australia— am sure he will remind me where they were. the Business Council of Australia, which I think it was not so close to seven per cent represents the top 200 companies in this but closer to 17 per cent for first home buy- country; the ACCI, which represents a large ers in the late 1980s. Good economic man- cross-section of over 350,000 businesses in agement produces good opportunity for this country representing four million em- young Australian home buyers. ployees; the National Farmers Federation, which represents the farmers of Australia; Workplace Relations and COSBOA, the Council of Small Busi- Mr BOWEN (2.31 pm)—My question is ness Organisations of Australia. All these directed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime business organisations have supported these Minister aware that on the government’s reforms. Last night on SBS, Tony Steven, the Work Choices web site it is possible for an CEO of COSBOA, said: individual to order and receive, free of I believe that small businesses will employ more charge, up to 99 copies of the government’s people. 16-page colour booklet? Is the Prime Minis- There is support from workers themselves. ter also aware that, after receipt of multiple Sandra Xuereb, who was shown on the front orders, hundreds of copies of the govern- page of the Australian newspaper—a single

CHAMBER 78 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 mother with a couple of kids—was lauding Australian Labor Party towards small busi- her ability to be able to work with flexibility ness. in her business and also to look after her Ms Plibersek interjecting— family. She was quoted in the Australian as The SPEAKER—Order! The member for saying about this flexibility that she can Sydney! leave in the middle of the day and do what she has to do; it is really good having that Mr ANDREWS—This was confirmed by option, being a single mother. Here is a the infamous lines of the Leader of the Op- worker saying that this flexibility is good; it position himself in 2000 when he said this: is not just for businesses. We have never pretended to be a small business Mr Tanner—One worker—10 million to Party, the Labor Party. go! He said, ‘We have never pretended that.’ That is what he said on 6PR radio in Perth The SPEAKER—The member for Mel- back in 2000. There are 28,000 businesses in bourne is on very thin ice. Kim Beazley’s electorate—in the electorate Mr ANDREWS—We have seen from the of the Leader of the Opposition. Yet he is opposition over the last few weeks an unbe- running around this country, as is the Labor lievable amount of hostility towards busi- Party, vilifying every small business and nesses in Australia. This is a party which has every other business in this country. That is abandoned small businesses and is now vili- the reality of the attack by the Australian fying the motives of small business in Aus- Labor Party. tralia. If we were to believe what the Leader Honourable members interjecting— of the Opposition was saying, then we would believe that every small business owner in The SPEAKER—Order! The minister Australia is going to run amok with this leg- will resume his seat. islation and sack workers all over Australia. Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— We have an anti small business rhetoric and The SPEAKER—The member for an anti small business mentality coming Hunter is warned. I remind all members of from the Leader of the Opposition and the the warning I gave before question time on Australian Labor Party. Monday. Given the anticipated proceedings It is not just me saying this; it is not just in the next 24 hours, all members would be the government saying this. This was said in wise to remember. May of this year: Mr ANDREWS—What we are seeing The Labor Party has given up the middle-class, here is an unprecedented extreme vilification middle-ground, sole-employer, self-employed, of business in Australia by the Australian small-business voter ... Labor Party, ranging from the small busi- Who said that? Was it John Howard? No, it nesses—the milk bar on the corner—of the was not John Howard— suburbs of Australia through to the CEOs of Mr Howard—But I agree with it. the blue-chip companies of this country. Mr ANDREWS—but he agrees. Was it They are being vilified day in and day out by the Treasurer? No, it was not the Treasurer. the Australian Labor Party. What this proves This was said in May of this year by Paul once again is that the Australian Labor Party Keating. This highlights the hostility of the is a party of sectional interests. It is about time it actually acted in the national interest.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 79

Workplace Relations Mr HOWARD—to the nonsense peddled Ms PLIBERSEK (2.39 pm)—My ques- by the Australian Labor Party—and every- tion is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, thing they have said in this debate is of a isn’t it the case that, under your extreme in- piece—that is the case. What they have said dustrial relations legislation, many Austra- in this debate is a remorseless continuation lians will have no guarantee of starting and of the way in which they have misrepre- finishing times, no guarantee of minimum or sented the social record and the social maximum hours, no certainty of rosters, no achievement of this government. entitlement to a stable income week by week I know it sticks in the craw of the Austra- even for permanent full-time employees, and lian Labor Party, but the truth is that over the no entitlement to higher rates of pay for last 9½ years the rich have not got richer at overtime or family unfriendly hours. Won’t the expense of the poor getting poorer. The this extreme legislation make balancing work reality is that our policies—our tax policies, and family tougher than ever before? our welfare policies—have resulted in the Mr HOWARD—The answer to that ques- relative position of the low-income families tion is no. The reality is that the greater of Australia improving. We have not only flexibility provided by this legislation will been a better friend of the workers of Austra- enhance the way in which the government lia than previous Labor governments have; has already improved the balance between we have also been a better friend of the low- work and family in the Australian commu- income earners of Australia. That is what nity. sticks in the craw. Not only have we been a better friend of the workers but we have been I am very pleased that the member for a better friend of the low-income earners. Sydney asked me that question. Just before The Labor Party finds that very hard to live question time I was looking over some notes with because it knows it is true. for a speech that will be delivered in the next few days, talking about the record of this Trade government in dealing with social security Mr CAUSLEY (2.42 pm)—My question issues. I was reminded of a finding by the is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and OECD that said that Australia had the most Minister for Trade. How will the govern- outstanding record of any developed country ment’s workplace relations changes improve in redistributing in favour of low- and mid- the productivity of our exporters? Are there dle-income families. Every single investiga- any alternative policies? tion of repute that has been done—be it done Mr VAILE—I thank the member for Page by NATSEM or other reputable bodies— for his question and recognise that he is a Ms Plibersek interjecting— former member and minister of a govern- The SPEAKER—Order! The member for ment in Australia that undertook major re- Sydney has asked her question. forms that improved the productivity and efficiency of the state of New South Wales. Mr HOWARD—demonstrates that over He recognises the importance of the reforms the last 9½ years, contrary— that are being proposed by this government Ms Plibersek interjecting— to improve competitiveness and productivity The SPEAKER—The member for Syd- in the Australian workplace. ney is warned! In the year ending last June, the 2004-05 financial year, Australia exported $162 bil-

CHAMBER 80 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 lion worth of goods and services out of this He went on to say: country, with an increase in manufactured The most important features are the ability for our exports and right across the board—in the members to provide flexible and permanent em- services sector, the commodity sector and ployment to employees who would otherwise be manufactured goods. It is the highest level of hired as casual staff. AWAs provide a win-win exports in Australia’s history. If we want to solution to addressing penalty rates and award continue this export success and be competi- inflexibilities to the satisfaction of employers and tive against all other comers across the staff alike. world, we have to continue to increase pro- The last one comes from Catalano Seafoods, ductivity gains in Australia and improve the who are market leaders in providing fresh way the Australian economy runs. That goes seafood produce to export markets. Their to the heart of some of the reforms that are human resource manager, Karen McCarthy, being proposed by our government now. states: This has been recognised by a number of AWAs have helped increase our retention rates international institutions. The IMF have and offer the flexibility to meet our needs while urged the implementation of the govern- also keeping our employees happy. ment’s industrial relations reforms to widen They are testimonies from good employers the employment opportunities and raise pro- who look after their staff, who look after ductivity by enhancing flexibility in work employees on AWAs; as well as from the arrangements. The IMF’s view is that further IMF, urging the implementation of these re- reforms of industrial relations are needed to forms in the Australian system to further en- expand labour demand and facilitate produc- hance productivity and our competitiveness tivity gains—exactly the objective that the in the international marketplace. government has. Welfare to Work Our reforms are also supported by the Ms HOARE (2.46 pm)—My question is many businesses across Australia that em- to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, under ploy millions of Australians in exporting in- the government’s extreme welfare changes, dustries. Just to give some examples: Austra- won’t sole parents and disability pensioners lian Business Woman of the Year, Diana Wil- be forced to take jobs with below-award liams, who started her health club business in conditions? Won’t sole parents be working Bendigo in regional Victoria, has her 3,000 for take-home pay as low as $3.88 per hour staff on AWAs. She said: and disability pensioners for as low as $2.27 I think they are pretty happy with the arrange- an hour? Why won’t the Prime Minister lis- ment, especially the maternity leave. Ninety-nine ten to the member for Pearce instead of the per cent of my staff are female and most are in member for O’Connor and give sole parents child-bearing years. Even though the job market and disabled Australians— is tight, we have a lot of people wanting to work for us. Mrs Bronwyn Bishop—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention Mr John Thorpe, the President of the Austra- to standing order 75, irrelevance and tedious lian Hotels Association’s New South Wales repetition. division, said: The SPEAKER—The member for Australian workplace agreements are an excellent Mackellar should be aware that successive award alternative for the hospitality industry as they provide flexibility and fairness to an industry occupiers of the chair have ruled that that that never closes.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 81 particular standing order does not apply to wrong. If one looks at the situation of sole questions. parents, this government unashamedly says Ms HOARE—Why won’t the Prime Min- to any person who is on welfare that the best ister listen to the member for Pearce instead form of welfare that we can provide, that we of the member for O’Connor and give sole can encourage them to have, is a job. The parents and disabled Australians real help in best form of welfare is a job. finding work, not just a cut to their family Ms Plibersek—Mr Speaker, I rise on a budget? point of order. These are NATSEM figures. The SPEAKER—I call the Minister for The Prime Minister says that NATSEM is a Employment and Workplace Relations. body to be trusted. Ms Plibersek—Where’s the Prime Minis- The SPEAKER—The member for Syd- ter? ney will raise a point of order, not debate the issue. The member for Sydney has already Ms Macklin—Why’s he ducking the been warned. I suggest that if she wants to question? take a point of order, she takes a point of Opposition members interjecting— order; she does not debate the question. The SPEAKER—Order! The minister Mrs Irwin—The member for Sydney is has the call. telling the truth, Mr Speaker! Mr ANDREWS—I thank the honourable The SPEAKER—Order! The member for member for her question. Can I point out to Fowler is warned! her, though, that she has been sadly misin- Mr ANDREWS—The best form of wel- formed of the facts that she put into the ques- fare is a job. The government is unashamed tion in relation to the payment that anyone in its commitment to encouraging as many will receive. Australians who are capable of working to Ms Hoare—They are the facts! get a job. If one looks at the situation of a The SPEAKER—Order! The member for sole parent— Charlton has asked her question. Ms Burke—Beggars can’t be choosers, Mr ANDREWS—One of the great advan- can they! tages of what this government is doing by The SPEAKER—Order! The member for way of reform of workplace relations in Aus- Chisholm is warned! tralia is to put in place in legislation in Aus- Mr ANDREWS—A sole parent in receipt tralia, for the first time at the federal level, a of the single parenting payment now has a guaranteed minimum wage. The guaranteed weekly income of $433.13. Under these pro- minimum wage, the starting point, is the de- posals that sole parent, not when the young- cision of the Australian Industrial Relations est child turns six but when the youngest Commission this year in its 2005 safety net child turns eight, will be encouraged to find a review. That minimum wage is some $12.75 minimum of 15 hours work per week. At the an hour, a long way from the $3 or $4 that minimum rate of $12.75 per hour, combined the honourable member was quoting. I am with the income support and the family tax not sure whether the honourable member had benefit that that parent will still retain, that done the research herself or the Manager of parent will have a weekly income of Opposition Business just passed her the $487.81. So, instead of living on an income question, but the reality is that the matters of $433.13, that parent will be in receipt of that she set out in her question are basically

CHAMBER 82 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

$487.81—and that is at the minimum wage 10th Division and have also provided some rate working the minimum of 15 hours. basic training for another 650 in Tallil. The In addition to that, the sole parent will re- third rotation of the training team in Iraq was tain the pensioner concession card, will rein Taji, which is north of Baghdad. They tain their telephone allowance and will retain trained around 1,000 Iraqis in logistics. I their pharmaceutical allowance. These are understand that was a huge success and that, important reforms— through two advisers, it is still providing support to the Iraqi Army Services Support Mr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a Institute. point of order. I go to the point of relevance. He was asked about a take-home pay as low The first and second of the training teams as $3.88 per hour. that we sent have completed their tours, during which they trained the Fourth Brigade The SPEAKER—The Leader of the Op- and Eighth Brigade of the Iraq Third Divi- position will resume his seat. The minister is sion. Australians should be proud of the sim- in order. ply outstanding job that the Australian Army, Mr ANDREWS—In effect, the opposi- and Australian Defence Force generally, is tion is arguing that Australia should accept doing in Iraq to train the Iraqis to take re- that sole parents remain on welfare benefits, sponsibility for security in that country. Our on average for 12 years, with the correspond- objective on this side of the House is per- ing poverty that flows from that and the cor- fectly clear: to see the continuation of the responding detriment that flows to their chil- democratic process and, increasingly, the dren. We have a different view and we are capacity of the Iraqi security forces to take prepared to do something about it—unlike control of security in their own country. the Leader of the Opposition, who stands for When those jobs have been completed, the nothing. transformation of Iraq from a brutal and Iraq cruel dictatorship to a liberal democracy will Mr KEENAN (2.52 pm)—My question is be great news not just for the people of Iraq addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. but for the Middle East. Through the Middle Would the minister inform the House on East there will be an emerging trend towards progress in providing a secure environment democracy, and that emerging trend will con- for the development of democracy in Iraq? tribute to greater peace in that very troubled Are there any alternative views? region. Mr Wilkie—Try and tell the truth. It is a simple point: we are very proud of the role—and it has been in controversial The SPEAKER—Order! The member for circumstances—that the government has Swan is warned! played in helping to make this possible. It Mr DOWNER—First of all, I thank the has held Australia in good stead around the honourable member for his question. He is a world. To have adopted the position of the member who has very strongly supported the Leader of the Opposition, and the opposition contribution Australia is making to the de- more generally, would have meant simply to veloping democracy in Iraq. The fourth rota- have allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in tion of the Australian Army Training Team in place, which would not have been in the best Iraq is in Al Muthanna province, in the interests of the Iraqi people, the Middle East south. So far they have trained around 900 or Australia. members of the Iraqi Second Brigade of the

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 83

Illegal Fishing boat. It would simply be impossible to do. It Mr KATTER (2.56 pm)—My question seems to us that by far the best approach is without notice is to the Minister representing the approach that we are taking now, which the Minister for Defence. Could the minister is to ensure that the Indonesian government confirm media reports and departmental and the Indonesian fishing industry under- comments that over 8,000 foreign vessels stand—and they are not just Indonesian fish- have been sighted in Australian waters but ermen—the risks, the dangers and the of- only 208 of these vessels have been appre- fences involved. hended? Further, would the minister not We conducted two operations—Operation agree that a problem exists for Darwin and Clear Water 1 and 2—in April and October Cairns based patrol boats, which have to pro- this year, which focused on protecting our tect an 8,000-kilometre coastline? Current northern waters. Indonesian officers from the arrangements are that Customs, through fisheries and customs ministries participated Coastwatch, are responsible for policing but in the first of those operations, but they were they have no apprehension capability, whilst not available to participate in the second. The the Navy has the apprehension capability but government is also using options to securely has no policing power. Would the minister and safely detain illegal foreign fishermen, not agree that a unified command system in including—but not exclusively— defence and home security and the tripling of Indonesians. Further work is going on with boats based in Karratha, Gove, Karumba and refurbishing the land based facility in Dar- Thursday Island would be the approach of a win. government serious about quarantine, con- In August of this year—just two or three servation, people-smuggling and terrorism? months ago—Australian and Indonesian of- Mr DOWNER—First, I thank the hon- ficials held a major bilateral fishing meeting ourable member for his question and his in- in Jakarta at which they discussed a wide terest. I will begin by agreeing with the hon- range of issues and agreed upon a work pro- ourable member that we are concerned about gram to expand and deepen fisheries and illegal fishing. This is certainly a growing marine resources cooperation. problem, as the honourable member said. I Opposition members interjecting— cannot confirm precisely the statistics but it The SPEAKER—Order! has been a problem for a very long time. It is an increasing problem, I am advised, because Mr DOWNER—The opposition interject. of the very high prices Indonesian fishermen They know nothing of these issues and have are able to get for shark fins. It is the case no interest in them; they have never asked a that some of the owners of the fishing single question in 9½ years of opposition. It boats—by the way, they are not necessarily is left to an Independent member of the Indonesian—including in our territorial wa- House of Representatives from Queensland ters, are prepared to take risks. to ask that question. It is a good question and I appreciate the honourable member’s inter- The honourable member makes a point est. about the dimensions and the number of patrol boats you might have to devote to an Private Health Insurance area so great. You could never provide Mr WOOD (3.00 pm)—My question is enough patrol boats to cover every single addressed to the Minister for Health and possible incursion by any imaginable fishing Ageing. Would the minister inform the

CHAMBER 84 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

House of the government’s latest improve- the private health insurance rebate— ments to private health insurance? How is would be one of the first things abolished in our the government committed to strengthening promises ... At different times Beazley has the private health system? Is the minister boasted to Caucus that it will go. aware of any alternative policies? I would also commend page 408 of The Mr ABBOTT—I thank the member for Latham Diaries, the entry from 13 January La Trobe for his question, and I can assure this year, where Mr Latham said of the sec- him that support for health insurance by the ond coming of the Leader of the Opposition: coalition parties has been one of the great He’ll be worse than ever, of course: good for constants of Australian politics. The private nothing, stand for nothing. health insurance rebate has been one of the Of course, the member for Lalor says, ‘Peo- signature policies of the Howard government ple should pay attention to the truths in this and, thanks largely to the private health in- book.’ surance rebate, almost nine million Austra- Oil for Food Program lians have access to the security and choice that private health insurance brings, includ- Mr RUDD (3.03 pm)—My question is to ing more than one million Australians with the Minister for Trade. I refer to allegations incomes of less than $20,000 a year. raised in a letter to then US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, released publicly on 5 Today, as a further sign of the govern- June 2003, which raised concerns about the ment’s support for the private health sector, Australian Wheat Board’s contract with Sad- we announced a strengthened mediation role dam Hussein’s regime. I also refer to the for the Private Health Insurance Ombuds- minister’s public response to that letter on 6 man, who will be given the same powers in June 2003: respect of private hospitals that he currently has in respect of private funds. This govern- I have asked my department to pass on to the US ment understands that you cannot have a Embassy that we are deeply disturbed by these ludicrous allegations and have asked them to strong Medicare system without also having convey to the Secretary of State our concerns. a strong private health sector. Minister, why did you mislead parliament The government understands that; I am yesterday when you said that the first time afraid that understanding is not universal in you heard allegations about whether the this parliament. I have been reading a very Wheat Board’s contracts with Iraq were in interesting book recently. It mostly deals violation of US sanctions was in the Volcker with the toxic culture of the Australian Labor report when in fact 2½ years ago allegations Party, but it also deals with private health were being raised publicly with the US Sec- insurance. I say to members opposite: do not retary of State—allegations which you be scared of reading The Latham Diaries. Do blithely dismissed out of hand? not put The Latham Diaries on the index of prohibited books. Do not be frightened of The SPEAKER—Order! Before I ask the reading it. Members opposite will find on minister to reply to that question, I will ask page 129 this entry from 22 February 2000: the member for Griffith to rephrase it. Part of that question could only be used as part of a ... Michael Costello— substantive motion. The member was reflect- that is to say, the Leader of the Opposition’s ing on the minister. I would ask him to re- chief of staff— phrase that question. told me it—

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 85

Mr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a of US sanctions was in the Volcker report point of order: the standing orders and House when in fact 2½ years ago allegations were of Representatives Practice clearly say that being raised publicly with the US Secretary you cannot accuse someone of deliberately of State—allegations that you simply dis- misleading the House other than on substan- missed out of hand at that time? tive motion, but the question of misleading is Mr VAILE—I did not mislead the House not covered by that standing order or that yesterday. The member for Griffith’s ques- procedure and has been consistently used on tion referred to the so-called kickbacks to both sides— Saddam Hussein, not Iraq. Let us just make The SPEAKER—The member for Fraser it very clear. I also referred in my answer to will resume his seat. The member for Fraser the responses that the Minister for Foreign on a second point of order? Affairs had given on this issue. Let us make Mr McMullan—I am trying to clarify it very clear. Yesterday you were talking this one, Mr Speaker. about ALEA. ALEA surfaced as a result of the Volcker inquiry. Today you were asking The SPEAKER—The member for Fraser questions about allegations of inflated prices will be well aware that the chair is not bound in 2003. to hear the end of a point of order when the member has made clear what it is. Mr Rudd—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question purely Mr McMullan—But it is very hard to un- goes to the minister’s personal knowledge of derstand it without knowing it all, Mr these matters. What is contained in this— Speaker. The SPEAKER—The member will re- The SPEAKER—The member for Fraser sume his seat. The minister has just begun to will not reflect of the chair, but I will hear answer this question. him further. Mr VAILE—With regard to the issue Mr McMullan—I am saying that the term raised by the member of the allegations in ‘mislead’ has been consistently used by gov- 2003—and that is all they were found to ernment ministers and the opposition, quite be—I do recall a number of public comments properly and consistently—and for 100 being made about those allegations in 2003. years—and it has never been said that that is something that could only be dealt with by Mr Rudd—Mr Speaker— substantive motion. An honourable member—This is frivo- The SPEAKER—The member for Grif- lous. fith will rephrase his question. That was a Mr Rudd—It is not frivolous; it is rele- very specific reference to the minister. It was vant. not a general reference, as has been sug- The SPEAKER—Does the member for gested. The member for Griffith will re- Griffith wish to raise a point of order? phrase that question. Mr Rudd—Yes, Mr Speaker—again, on Mr RUDD—In deference to you, Mr relevance. The minister was asked about al- Speaker, the last part of my question reads: legations contained in this correspondence did the minister mislead parliament yester- with the US Secretary of State which deals day when he said the first time he heard alle- specifically with the Australian Wheat Board gations about whether the Australian Wheat and payments to Saddam Hussein’s family. Board’s contracts with Iraq were in violation

CHAMBER 86 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

The SPEAKER—The minister is in or- too much. This has nothing to do with the der. question that they were asked. Mr VAILE—A number of public com- The SPEAKER—The Minister for Trade ments were made with regard to and in re- is in order. sponse to the allegations that the member for Mr VAILE—The point is very clear here. Griffith is referring to in 2003. I am just This was a matter that was out in the public about to answer the question with regard to arena. The whole country knew about it; it my knowledge of those. As I indicated ear- was being discussed publicly. That is how I lier, I recollect being made aware of public knew about it—and everybody else, includ- comments made by AWB in response to al- ing Senator O’Brien and Craig Emerson. legations by the US Wheat Associates, com- They went on to say in this press release: mercial competitors of the AWB in this mar- In the absence of evidence to support the allega- ketplace. A number of press releases were tions, Australian wheat growers are entitled to issued during the course of that debate by dismiss the claims as an attempt to promote the different people involved in this debate and sale of US subsidised wheat in the Iraq market. by the AWB themselves. Comments were That was the attitude taken by quite a num- made by the government but there was also a ber of people, including the Australian gov- comment, a joint press release, made by ernment. Senator Kerry O’Brien and Craig Emerson. Kerry O’Brien was then the shadow minister Mr Downer interjecting— for primary industries; Craig Emerson was Social Welfare the shadow minister for innovation, industry Mr ROBB (3.12 pm)—My question is and trade. addressed to the Minister for Human Ser- Mr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a vices. Would the minister update the House point of order on relevance. This is actually on how the government is ensuring people very serious, because $300 million worth of receive their correct entitlements? Australian money has gone into the back Ms Gillard—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point kick of the insurgencies, and he has been of order. The Minister for Foreign Affairs asked a very explicit question on what he has made a grossly offensive, unparliamentary had to say about former Secretary of State remark, and I require you to get him to with- Powell’s allegations. draw it. The SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime The SPEAKER—If the Minister for For- Minister is coming to the question. eign Affairs made an offensive remark, he Mr VAILE—I have indicated my knowl- will withdraw it. The minister will come to edge of that, but I am also highlighting the the dispatch box. knowledge of others who made public com- Mr Downer—I do not know what I said, ments at the time with regard to this and Mr Speaker, but I withdraw. about the allegations that were made at the The SPEAKER—The member for Gold- time. In the press release issued by Kerry stein will repeat his question. O’Brien and Craig Emerson, they say: Mr ROBB—My question is addressed to US Wheat Associates must be asked to substanti- the Minister for— ate its claims. Mr Downer interjecting— Mr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. They get away with this far

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 87

Ms Gillard—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point The SPEAKER—I remind the Manager of order. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has of Opposition Business that I repeated the resumed his seat and, I believe, has just re- fact that the Leader of the House had with- peated the grossly offensive remark. I require drawn. The member for Goldstein will repeat you to get him to withdraw it. his question. Mr Abbott—Mr Speaker, on the point of Mr ROBB—My question is addressed to order: my understanding is that the Minister the Minister for Human Services. Would the for Foreign Affairs said that they are on Sad- minister update the House on how the gov- dam’s side. What is so offensive about that, ernment is ensuring people receive their cor- Mr Speaker? That is an accurate description rect entitlements? of the effect of the opposition— Ms Gillard interjecting— The SPEAKER—The Leader of the The SPEAKER—The Manager of Oppo- House will resume his seat. sition Business is warned! Mr Crean—You bankrolled him. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Mr HOCKEY—I thank the member for Hotham is warned! Goldstein for his question. I thought I might Mr Snowdon interjecting— not get the opportunity to answer it. It is a The SPEAKER—Order! The member for very good question. Every year Australia Lingiari will remove himself from the House spends $82 billion on welfare. It is a very under standing order 94(a). generous act on the part of Australian taxpayers and it represents nearly 10 per cent of The member for Lingiari then left the Australia’s GDP: thank you, Treasurer. Fraud chamber. is a significant part of the framework. It is Ms Gillard—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point vitally important that we attack fraud to de- of order. It would be obvious to you that, in fend the interests of the Australian taxpayer. repeating that remark, the Leader of the Last year, in response to 55,000 tip-offs, House was trying to inflame the situation 3,500 Australians were prosecuted for wel- here. It is clearly a grossly unparliamentary fare fraud. It is unfortunate, but it is very remark. If you do not require that remark to important for the protection of the taxpayer be withdrawn then anything goes. Hitler’s that we undertake those prosecutions. Crack- mates— ing down on welfare fraud saves Australian The SPEAKER—The Manager of Oppo- taxpayers $4,000 every minute. sition Business will resume her seat and I In the last 12 weeks, as a result of our will rule on the point of order. I repeat: if the campaign called Support the System that Minister for Foreign Affairs made an offen- Supports You, 27,000 Australians have up- sive remark, he will withdraw it. dated their incomes or changed the informa- Mr Downer—I withdraw it. tion held by Centrelink, and we have had a Mr Abbott—In anticipation of the point further 9,000 tip-offs. This is a very impor- of order, I also withdraw. tant part of our program of trying to ensure that those people who are entitled to welfare The SPEAKER—The Leader of the receive the welfare and that those who are House has also withdrawn. not entitled to welfare are either prosecuted Ms Gillard interjecting— for fraud or have their circumstances

CHAMBER 88 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 changed to make sure that they only receive Please refer to the answer provided to question the money they are entitled to. No. 1404, asked of the Prime Minister. Mr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that fur- That was the same question I put on the No- ther questions be placed on the Notice Paper. tice Paper on 23 May 2005. Curiously, Min- QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER ister Kelly approved the reply of the Prime Minister and signed it and dated it on 7 No- National Security vember 2005. Mr TUCKEY (3.18 pm)—Mr Speaker, in On today’s Notice Paper, question No. the light of the opposition’s question strategy 1404—that question that I put to the Prime today, could you please confirm to me that a Minister—is still listed as unanswered. I con- major terrorist related event actually oc- tacted the Table Office shortly before ques- curred in Australia yesterday? tion time, and it was clear from the response The SPEAKER—I do not believe that of the Table Office that the reply from the question warrants an answer. Prime Minister to that question has not been Uniform Summertime received by the Table Office. I ask you, Mr Mr EDWARDS (3.19 pm)—Mr Speaker, Speaker, to write to the minister to seek clari- are you aware that the President of the Sen- fication for that anomaly, because Minister ate has written to the PM, urging him to im- Kelly has approved the Prime Minister’s re- pose summertime uniformity across Austra- ply and I have not been provided with a reply lia by using constitutional powers? Mr to that question which dates back to 23 May Speaker, were you consulted on this move by 2005. My constituent is still anxiously await- the President of the Senate; and, as Presiding ing an answer. Officer in this House, do you support his The SPEAKER—I thank the member for actions? Finally, Mr Speaker, are you aware Lowe. I will investigate that further and re- that any move to impose uniform summer- port back as appropriate. time across Australia is likely to be strongly Questions in Writing rejected by states like WA which have opted Ms GRIERSON (3.22 pm)—Mr Speaker, not to adopt daylight saving? I ask that you again write to the Treasurer, The SPEAKER—I thank the member for seeking an answer to my question No. 703 Cowan for his question. I am not aware of about missing laptops in the ATO, which I the first matter he raised, and I am aware of placed on the Notice Paper on 7 March 2005 the last point that he raised. and about which I made a similar request to Questions in Writing you in August. Mr MURPHY (3.20 pm)—On 23 May The SPEAKER—I thank the member for this year, I put two questions on the Notice Newcastle. I will follow up her request. Paper to the Prime Minister and the Minister DOCUMENTS for Veterans’ Affairs, relating to a possible Mr ABBOTT (Warringah— Leader of the entitlement to the gold card for British House) (3.22 pm)—Documents are tabled as Commonwealth Occupation Forces members listed in the schedule circulated to honour- who served in Japan after 29 October 1945. able members. Details of the documents will Yesterday, I received a reply through the Ta- be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. ble Office from the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, saying:

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 89

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE gle contributor, having contributed some 14 Australian Wheat Board per cent of the total. It is the sort of gold medal Australians never want to win. The SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Griffith What we have to do today in this parlia- proposing that a definite matter of public ment is to begin the process of getting to the importance be submitted to the House for truth of all this. How did this come about? discussion, namely: The people of Australia actually want to The Government’s culpable negligence in al- know how this happened. This is a scandal of lowing the Australian Wheat Board to pay nearly such monumental proportions. What I wish $300 million to Saddam Hussein in violation of to do today, without recourse to hyperbole, UN sanctions. without recourse to any extravagance, is just I call upon those members who approve of to put all of this into factual context. Let us the proposed discussion to rise in their go back to the beginning. We have the first places. Iraq war and we have UN Security Council resolution 661, which requires that all UN More than the number of members remember states have to ensure that their na- quired by the standing orders having risen in tionals and their national corporations do not their places— allow the sanctions regime against Iraq to be Mr RUDD (Griffith) (3.23 pm)—The broken by payments being made to Saddam case I advance to the parliament, the people Hussein’s regime—an obligation on nation and the press gallery today is, I think, the states. At this point, the government’s pri- most serious I have ever had to advance in mary defence in this whole exercise falls this parliament. It is that, at a minimum, the over, because the UN Security Council reso- Howard government is guilty of culpable lution is very clear: the responsibility lies negligence in approving a commercial ar- with national governments—in this case, the rangement between the Australian Wheat Australian government. Board and an Iraqi intermediary which re- The oil for food program was then estab- sulted in $300 million being paid to Saddam lished in 1996 under a separate UN Security Hussein in total violation of UN sanctions. Council resolution—resolution 986. It sought I ask the parliament and the press gallery to alleviate humanitarian suffering in Iraq by to contemplate the sheer dimensions of this. allowing Iraq to export oil, to earn money The Volcker inquiry in the United States, at from it and to stick it in a UN-controlled the request of the UN Secretary-General, bank account run by BNP. Therefore, when investigated a total of 2,200 corporations countries negotiated food or medical supply worldwide engaged in a kickback scheme contracts with Iraq, they were paid directly with the Iraqi dictator. Volcker calculates that out of that UN-controlled bank account in these 2,200 corporations altogether contrib- New York. That was the oil for food pro- uted some $2 billion to Saddam Hussein by gram. way of kickbacks. The staggering fact is this: Critically, in achieving approval for each out of that $2 billion, the Australian Wheat contract, there is first and foremost a role for Board, in an arrangement sanctioned by the national governments. If there is any doubt Australian government, explicitly contrib- on this score, the Minister for Foreign Affairs uted $300 million of that $2 billion—the last week, in a rare outburst of candour, ad- world record. Of the 2,200 corporations, the mitted that fact. He said the job of DFAT was Australian Wheat Board was the largest sin-

CHAMBER 90 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 to examine each proposed contract from the Iraqi regime. The key question alive in this Australian Wheat Board and ensure there entire debate is: did the Australian Wheat was no infringement of the Iraq sanctions Board have any knowledge that this com- regime. After that, the contracts went from pany, Alia, was directly connected with the the Australian government to the Office of Iraq regime and, therefore, funnelling money the Iraq Program in the United Nations in to them? It might have got through passing New York, where they were in turn ap- scrutiny but, if Iraq’s grains council asked proved. Then the contracts were issued, the the Australian Wheat Board specifically to export permits were granted to the Australian engage this company called Alia, a few bells Wheat Board and the money was paid. That might have started ringing in the belltower. is how it was supposed to work. But we will get to that as this whole saga There are two critical decision-making unfolds. points—the Australian government and the This was how it started in 1999. As a re- United Nations Office of the Iraq Program. It sult of this deal with Alia, guess what? The is critical that we focus on that. In fact, a freight cost for wheat suddenly escalated contract would pass through the Australian from $10 per metric tonne to $56 per metric government’s hands on each occasion at least tonne. Again, you would think the bells four times—into and out of DFAT in Can- would start to ring, because guess what hap- berra and into and out of DFAT in New pened? This company became the exclusive York—and we still do not know how many vehicle through which $300 million landed other Australian government agencies were in the back pocket of—guess who—Saddam engaged in the deliberative process relating Hussein, the foreign minister’s second-best to each of the 43 Wheat Board contracts over friend. That is where the money went to— this period. What happened then? There was ultimately to help the Iraqi insurgency. another instrumentality involved here as Roll the clock on to January 2000. This is well—and my colleague the member for a critical juncture in the debate again, be- Corio will focus on this—and that was the cause the Canadian Wheat Board gets wind Wheat Export Authority, a federal govern- of what is going on. They roll into the United ment statutory authority. Nations Office of the Iraq Program and say, Mr McGauran interjecting— ‘We’ve heard the Australian Wheat Board is Mr RUDD—You protest too much, my up to no good. They may be using Jordanian friend! The Wheat Export Authority has a bank accounts to fund internal transport ar- statutory responsibility to examine each ex- rangements with Iraq, in turn funnelling port contract by the Wheat Board and, on top money back to the Iraqi regime.’ Guess what of that, to disaggregate the cost of wheat happened? The United Nations took this so from other non-cost items—namely, freight seriously that they called in the Australian and insurance—in order to compare one con- government’s representative in New York. tract for wheat against another. My colleague They, in turn, sent a cable back to this minis- will return to this point very soon. ter’s government here in Canberra. I am sure it was distributed to his ministerial office as In 1999 the Australian Wheat Board began well. Then what did they do? They called in negotiations with a front company in Jordan the Wheat Board and said, ‘I say, chaps, is called Alia. It was supposed to provide inter- there any truth in this?’ Guess what the nal transport services in Iraq for Australian Wheat Board said? They said, ‘Of course wheat. In fact, it was a front company for the not.’ They denied it. Then, despite the matter

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 91 having been raised formally and directly by lian government, saying, ‘Is there anything the United Nations in New York, they simply smelly going on here, Comrades?’ and they let it go through to the Prime Minister’s fa- said, ‘No,’ on the basis of a nod and a wink mous—almost infamous—keeper. That was from the Australian Wheat Board. January 2000. Roll on to September 2002, when we had Roll the clock along to July 2000. In July the trade minister, Mark Vaile, publicly the United Nations Office for Legal Affairs boasting of his role in facilitating Australian were approached by another UN contrac- companies’ accessing the oil for food pro- tor—not the Wheat Board—and asked spe- gram. Then, still in 2002, to round out a very cifically about this company called Alia. The big year, we had this document, which I re- question, basically, was, ‘Is it smelly?’ Guess veal for the first time in the parliament. It is a what the UN Office for Legal Affairs said? document put out by the United States Gen- They said: ‘It stinks to high heaven. It is eral Accounting Office and it is entitled funnelling money back to guess who in ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction: U.N. Con- Baghdad.’ Through this whole process did fronts Significant Challenges in Implement- the Australian government ever bother con- ing Sanctions against Iraq.’ The date on it is sulting the UN Office for Legal Affairs? It May 2002. It is worth a read. A few pages in, does not seem so—at least we do not yet it says this: know that it did. But that is the answer we Although the oil for food program controls most know the UN gave to another contractor. of Iraq’s oil revenues in an escrow account ... we Roll the clock on one more step. This is conservatively estimate that Iraq has illegally critical. Guess what happened in October- earned some $2.3 billion in illegal surcharges on oil and commissions from its commodity con- November 2000? The Australian Wheat tracts. Board wrote a letter to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, saying: ‘We are This was put out in May 2002, when the entering into commercial arrangements with whole rort was unfolding and being imple- Jordanian trucking companies for internal mented. The document goes on to say: transport of Australian wheat within Iraq. ... the Iraqi government has been levying a sur- Any problems?’ Three days later a letter charge against oil purchases and commissions came back from the Department of Foreign against commodity suppliers participating in the Affairs and Trade, saying, ‘Bob’s your un- oil for food program. We estimate Iraq earned more than $700 million in 2001 using these ille- cle,’—or, as it may be, ‘Saddam’s your un- gal practices. cle,’—‘off you go.’ The money started flow- ing through. This is a public document in the United States. The government has an embassy over The key question is: what due diligence there that is full of squillions of Australian did you blokes get involved in when it came diplomats. I have been there a few times my- to that whole process of a three-day turn- self. Did you guys never turn up this docu- around for a total green light to a regime ment? It was in the United States Congress, which became the vehicle through which and yet you simply ignored this fact right Saddam Hussein obtained $A300 million— through 2002, when you were building up off the back of that letter of authority. This is the case to go to war against Saddam Hus- despite the fact that in January that year, nine sein. months before, the Canadians and the UN raised this matter with the self-same Austra- Let us come to the specific charges we require you to answer. Charge No. 1 is that the

CHAMBER 92 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

Foreign Minister and the trade minister and ing all the way to the bank. The Audit Office their departments were culpably negligent in reported that in the previous year alone $700 taking every reasonable care and precaution million had been paid across to Saddam Hus- to prevent the AWB from breaching UN sein off the back of commissions to the re- sanctions to Iraq in order for this $300 mil- gime coming off commodity exporters to lion to be paid across. Charge No. 2 is that Iraq. Any government seriously committed the Foreign Minister and the trade minister to adherence to the UN sanctions regime were culpably negligent in ignoring the against Iraq would have listened to each and warnings by the UN back in January 2000 every one of those five warning bells, sig- when the UN Office of the Iraq Program nalled by every element of administration in raised specific concerns about the Australian the United States, in the United Nations and Wheat Board. Charge No. 3 is that the For- through the Canadian Wheat Board. But they eign Minister and the trade minister were chose not to listen. culpably negligent in October-November The purpose of our investigations in this 2000 in providing an unqualified green light place is to try and understand why. Why did to the AWB’s proposal to use Jordanian that happen? The implications are clear, Min- companies to provide internal transport, de- ister McGauran. The $300 million goes on to spite UN warnings nine months before. fund an Iraqi insurgency and the Iraqis’ war Charge No. 4 is that the government, corpo- against Australian forces in that country in rately, was culpably negligent in ignoring the 2003. If you and the foreign minister think sudden increase in freight prices for AWB that is a laughing matter, I am sure that the wheat contracts. The government’s authority, Australian Defence Force does not think it is the WEA—as I have said before to the Min- a laughing matter. Beyond all that again, the ister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, reputation of Australia as a wheat exporter— who is at the table—confirmed in estimates the reputation of the Australian Wheat this week that they, in examining these con- Board—itself is now held up in the interna- tracts, separated out the freight component tional spotlight in a way in which it has and the cost of wheat component. If the never been held up before. WEA, which under statute is responsible for You asked, Minister, why we want a royal advice to the government on the performance commission. Because we demand to get to of the Wheat Board, did that at that time, the bottom of this. This is the biggest scandal what were you doing, Muggins, when that that we have seen in this parliament for a information was provided to you and your decade—$300 million to the Iraqi dictator, predecessor? and you simply smile and hope that it is go- The DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member ing to go away. I tell you, Minister, we have for Griffith will withdraw that comment. not the slightest intention of allowing this Mr RUDD—I withdraw that, Mr Deputy matter to rest. We intend to expose the truth. Speaker. When the cost of the freight com- A royal commission with full powers of in- ponent increased, rising from $10 per metric vestigation is the only means by which that tonne to $56 per metric tonne, some bells truth shall be obtained, and we intend to must have gone off. Charge No. 5 is that the press for it at every opportunity. (Time ex- government was culpably negligent in ignor- pired) ing the substance of the US General Audit Mr McGAURAN (Gippsland—Minister Office’s report of May 2000, while the AWB for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (3.38 rort was in full swing, and Saddam was sing-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 93 pm)—This matter of public importance Mr McGAURAN—But let us put this in started somewhat promisingly, because the some sort of context. The United Nations, member for Griffith assured the House that not the Australian government, ran the oil for there would be no hype, there would be no food program. Let us just get that perfectly hyperbole, as he said. That was a great relief clear. The United Nations ran the program. It to everybody who has to endure—indeed, is important also to remember, amongst all of suffer—the exaggeration and the confected the bluff and bluster of the member for Grif- rage of the member for Griffith. So it was fith, who cannot help himself— with a degree of welcome that I thought we Mr Rudd interjecting— would have a sensible debate. We could ex- The DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member amine the issues. After all, the government for Griffith will take notice of what the chair has announced the establishment of an in- is saying. He had 15 minutes; he will let the quiry. The conduct of it will shortly be an- minister reply. nounced. But, oh, no, the member for Grif- fith had to revert to kind. Mr McGAURAN—that it was the United Nations, through the Security Council’s 661 Mr Rudd interjecting— sanctions committee and the United Nations The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Office of the Iraq Program, which was re- Causley)—The member for Griffith had 20 sponsible for contract approvals, and not the minutes. Australian government. This is just a way, Mr McGAURAN—He could not for 15 politically, to get at the government or indi- minutes possibly spare us his traditional vidual ministers. The game is obvious to one form of address and his trademark, which is and all, and the member for Griffith under- of course exaggeration and the slurring of mines his own case by these absurd allega- individuals or the government collectively. tions and also, if I may say so, the unsavoury So there was not going to be any hyperbole slurs on the reputation of the Department of or hype, and yet he told us that this is a scan- Foreign Affairs and Trade. dal of monumental proportions. Later he On 1 November this year, Mr Tony Jones said, ‘This is the biggest scandal in 10 years.’ on the Lateline program asked this question Of course, the terms of the MPI itself are of the member for Griffith: expressed as ‘The government’s culpable Are you suggesting or attempting to suggest that negligence in allowing the Australian Wheat any government department or minister had Board’ and so on. The member for Griffith knowledge that bribes of this nature were being only knows one speed, and that is to distort, paid to Saddam Hussein’s regime to facilitate this to misrepresent and to exaggerate beyond the wheat deal? bounds of reality. The thing about the mem- Anybody with a skerrick of public responsi- ber for Griffith is that he undermines his own bility or decency would have said, ‘No, there case. The government will have an inquiry. is no such evidence, but an inquiry is re- We do believe that there are matters to sat- quired in all the circumstances,’ but not the isfy the parliament and the Australian people member for Griffith. Because of his own about. personal character, he had to leave hanging Mr Rudd interjecting— in the air the possibility that ministers had The DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member knowledge of bribes. So his answer was: for Griffith! Tony, the problem we have at present is that we don’t know.

CHAMBER 94 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

That’s right—just keep throwing the mud; DFAT’s role in the process has to be prop- just let the slur hang in the air over DFAT erly set out and understood. Commercial officials and over ministers. And he had an- suppliers would negotiate and agree on a other chance to properly put the issue in con- contract with Iraqi counterparts. DFAT was text—and the issue is serious. The govern- not a party to the contract. The contract ment fully acknowledges and recognises would be forwarded to DFAT for submission. that, hence the need for an inquiry. A reporter DFAT would examine the contract paper- asked him at a doorstop: ‘Are you accusing work. Once satisfied that this had been prop- DFAT of corruption or incompetence?’ That erly completed and that the transaction did is pretty simple: ‘Are you accusing DFAT of not appear to infringe the United Nations incompetence or corruption?’ And he would sanctions regime, the documentation was not say no. Of course he would not say no. submitted via the Australian United Nations Instead, in a long, wordy answer, he deliber- mission to the United Nations Office of the ately left the allegation of corruption against Iraq Program and the 661 sanctions commit- DFAT officials hanging in the air. In other tee in New York. United Nations customs words, it is the Napoleonic law— experts in the UN Office of the Iraq Program Mr Rudd interjecting— had responsibility for evaluating the price and value of contracts. Following contract The DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member approval by the United Nations, DFAT for Griffith is warned! would issue an export permit authorising the Mr McGAURAN—that you are guilty export to Iraq. until proven innocent. He goes on to say: We have had the Volcker inquiry. The ... what we’ve got so far is a picture of total abso- government cooperated fully with it and it lute negligence. had access to all relevant DFAT information. Whether it becomes worse than that remains to be It found no evidence of any Australian gov- seen. ernment complicity, nor did it have any criti- So the member for Griffith has had opportu- cism of the Australian government or of nities to do the honourable thing and put this DFAT in particular. So the most honourable matter into context. The simple fact is that thing for the member for Griffith to do would the Australian government has had no evi- be to at least give DFAT the benefit of the dence that oil for food contracts executed by doubt. But, no; instead, he has none too sub- Australian companies resulted in illegal tly implied that there may well be elements channelling of funds to the Iraqi government, of corruption and that bribery would know- and I believe the member for Griffith knows ingly have been approved by government that. But, oh, no, this is ‘the biggest scandal ministers or government officials. That is in 10 years’. This is a ‘scandal of monumen- what the member for Griffith has, in a cow- tal proportions’. ardly way, set out to imply. It is a serious issue. An independent in- Of course neither DFAT nor the govern- quiry will shortly be announced to pursue ment were aware of the AWB’s use of Alia issues, and that will have all of the capacity during the oil for food program. There was to properly discharge its requirements to the no green light for Alia. The exchange of let- satisfaction of the Australian public. But, in ters by the Australian Wheat Board and the meantime, let us go through some of the DFAT in October-November 2000 that the specific allegations that the member for Grif- member for Griffith places such importance fith conjures up. on was in reference to a general inquiry on

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 95 the possible use of Jordanian transport com- Australian Wheat Board categorically denied panies. I am advised that the exchange con- them. tained no mention of Alia or any other spe- The supposed forensic and detailed case cific company. I am further advised, in re- made by the member for Griffith, stripped of gard to the earlier allegations in about Janu- his usual hyperbole, exaggeration and ary 2000, that the United Nations query hype—as he claimed; but none of us wit- about the Canadian allegations was, as far as nessed it—falls to ground. He simply does I am aware, resolved to the satisfaction of the not substantiate his wildest accusations. I do United Nations. The United Nations legal stress, however, that there is to be an inquiry. advice of June 2000 was internal and was not But, until the inquiry conducts its business passed on to the Australian United Nations and takes into account any issues or submis- mission. sions, I believe that the member for Griffith It is obvious that there were shocking should hold his fire, instead of accusing the shortcomings in the United Nations admini- government of knowingly and willingly stration of the oil for food program. This is a overseeing payments in breach of the United serious issue, and the government is taking it Nations oil for food program. Why doesn’t seriously. The inquiry that the Prime Minis- the member for Griffith have the personal ter has foreshadowed will examine whether integrity to hold such judgments in abey- any breach of Australian law by companies ance? named in the Volcker report occurred. But it I ask the member for Griffith: what do you is quite outrageous and unsustainable to sug- think this is doing to your and the opposi- gest that DFAT officials were corrupt. tion’s reputation in DFAT? I suppose that is With regard to the issue of the spike in of no concern to him, and nor should it be if transport costs, I am advised that inland he is pursuing an issue legitimately and in transportation costs were not mentioned in the public interest. But to accuse a govern- the Australian Wheat Board contracts from ment and individual ministers of culpable early 2000 onwards, when the Volcker in- negligence in supporting Saddam Hussein’s quiry alleges transportation costs increased regime is over the top. That will always be significantly. The government therefore had the fatal weakness of the member for Grif- no visibility of the spike in transportation fith; he will always go that bridge too far. costs. The member for Griffith has foreshad- The United Nations raised allegations of owed that my opposite number will deal with possible irregularities, made by Canada, with the issue of the Wheat Export Authority. The Australia’s United Nations mission in Janu- member for Griffith gave us a sampling of ary 2000. I want to return to and emphasise the line of attack that the member for Corio this point: I understand that, following dis- will adopt, saying that the Wheat Export Au- cussions between the United Nations and thority actually had the legislative power and Australia’s United Nations mission and the the duty and responsibility to discover these provision by the AWB of contract terms and payments to Alia and to conclude that they conditions and information, the matter was were in breach of the United Nations sanc- apparently resolved to the satisfaction of the tions. This is a fundamental misunderstand- United Nations. No evidence was offered in ing of the role of the Wheat Export Author- support of the Canadian allegations, and the ity, and I will be very surprised if the member for Corio lives up to the billing given by

CHAMBER 96 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 the member for Griffith. The WEA does not be investigated by the inquiry, as outlined by manage either the day-to-day commercial the Prime Minister? activities of the Australian Wheat Board or I wish to know how the members for Grif- its corporate governance activities. fith and Corio, before that inquiry, will jus- Mr Gavan O’Connor—We all know that. tify the insults and accusations made about Mr McGAURAN—I do not think the ministers, government officials and govern- member for Corio does know that. It is ment departments before that inquiry. For the probably the first time he has heard it. He member for Corio: quite frankly, there is a certainly has not read the Hansard record of constituency that wants this matter dealt with the attendance of the Chairman of the Wheat responsibly and calmly, as is the govern- Export Authority at Senate estimates on 1 ment’s usual course. Where there are issues November. I have. Any matters or issues that to be pursued and questions to be answered, the member for Corio wishes to put to this they should be pursued and answered at a chamber in relation to the WEA will have properly constituted inquiry of the kind that been canvassed by his colleagues in the Sen- the government has announced, the full de- ate and will have been answered by the tails of which will be available shortly. That chairman. I will be very interested to com- is what the general public wants, as much as pare the member for Corio’s dealings with, growers do. They do not want the Labor and handling of, the WEA issue with what Party to join with international opponents in has already preceded him. If the member for undermining their industry. Corio goes down the route of distorting and Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR (Corio) (3.53 misrepresenting and defaming the Wheat pm)—Piece by piece, the opposition will Export Authority, the growers of Australia strip away the rotting political flesh around will want to know about it. this scandal. Minister McGauran, this is what The WEA has responsibility for monitor- we call in politics a very slow burn. We do ing and reporting on the operations of AWB not intend to let the great reputation of Aus- (International) so as to maximise returns to tralia’s wheat industry and its wheat growers growers from that body’s operation of the be sacrificed on the altar of the incompetence export monopoly. Therefore, the WEA exam- of the government and its agencies. ines contracts to assess the accuracy of its For 50 years, Iraq has been an important reporting on the outcomes achieved by market for Australian wheat. Until the Prime AWB(I). In other words, the WEA is to en- Minister took his misguided decision to join sure that the export monopoly of the AWB(I) President Bush in an invasion of Iraq, Aus- is serving the interests of the growers. tralian wheat growers were providing an av- I understand that the WEA provided all erage of 2.5 million tonnes per annum to relevant information it held to the Volcker Iraq. Since the invasion, a considerable por- inquiry through DFAT as requested. It coop- tion of Australia’s traditional share of the erated fully, completely and unhesitatingly, Iraqi wheat market has been lost to our com- and the WEA had no material that suggested petitors in the United States. Iraq, however, additional scrutiny was warranted. How remains an extremely important market for many times do we on this side have to stress Australian wheat, and matters with the po- before it is finally absorbed by the Australian tential to impact on that market require the Labor Party that these are matters that will closest examination.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 97

Ten days ago, the Prime Minister stood up This government has been in power for in this place and promised the Australian nearly 10 years now and its ministers and people, including the Australian wheat grow- agencies have overseen the operation of ers, that he would establish an inquiry into AWB (International) and its predecessor, the the matters arising from the Volcker report Australian Wheat Board, for the whole of on the United Nations oil for food program. that time. For much of that time, one particu- We challenge the Prime Minister and the lar government agency has had quite a spe- minister to set up a royal commission that cific role in overseeing the operations of would enable witnesses to gain protection AWB (International), including all aspects of when they give evidence on this scandal—do its trading operations in Iraq under Saddam it. If the government really believes that it Hussein’s regime. That agency is the Wheat wants to get to the bottom of this matter, it Export Authority. should set up a proper judicial inquiry. The responsibilities and powers of the Mr McGauran—Be patient. Wheat Export Authority are set out in the Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR—I will. I will Wheat Marketing Act. Under that act, the listen with bated breath for the announce- Wheat Export Authority is required to con- ment that we should have had last week. Is trol the export of wheat from Australia and to your problem that you cannot find a chair- monitor the performance of AWB in relation man or that you cannot work out the terms of to the export of wheat. The act gives the reference? It is always important to study the Wheat Export Authority the power to direct actual words of this Prime Minister very AWB to give it the evidence it needs to do its carefully. The Prime Minister is very good at job, including any information, documents or using weasel words and he always finds a copies of documents in the custody or under way of shifting the blame from the govern- the control of AWB or a related entity. The ment and his ministers to somebody else. We act requires that the Wheat Export Authority have long learned on this side of the House keep the agriculture minister informed and it that he is a wriggler; he will use wriggle empowers the minister to issue written words to get away from facing up to the re- guidelines to the authority. The Wheat Ex- sponsibility of his government in these and port Authority reports on AWB’s operations other matters. On Monday last week, the to wheat growers and the public through its Prime Minister said to the House: annual growers report and its annual report, and it reports to the agriculture minister in ... I believe that there should be an independent inquiry into whether there was any breach of Aus- confidential performance monitoring reports. tralian law by those Australian companies re- It is clear that the Wheat Export Authority ferred to in the Volcker report. was closely monitoring AWB’s performance He wants this inquiry to focus on the compa- in the Iraq market. The Wheat Export Au- nies and not on the government or any of its thority’s 2004 growers report, which deals agencies. On this matter, Labor will not let with AWB’s performance during 2002-03, this Prime Minister or this minister off. That has a section headed Iraq. That section in- is why this particular MPI uses the words cludes comments on AWB’s role in the oil ‘the government’s culpable negligence in for food program and it details part of allowing the Australian Wheat Board to pay AWB’s response to market problems that nearly $300 million to Saddam Hussein in arose as a result of the commencement of violation of UN sanctions’. hostilities. We know from evidence given at the recent Senate estimates hearings that the

CHAMBER 98 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

Wheat Export Authority examined the con- on to the then agriculture minister. The gov- tracts for the sale of wheat to Iraq. In addi- ernment and its agencies cannot be allowed tion, we know that, as far back as 1999, the to slither out of the spotlight on this one and WEA was concerned enough about incen- put the focus on the AWB and the wheat tives paid by AWB in markets around the growers of Australia. The Wheat Export Au- world for it to employ a contractor consultant thority had both the duty and the power to whose role, in part, was to investigate incen- monitor these arrangements, and it had the tives—incentives that AWB offers compared responsibility to report on them to the agri- to other competitors. culture minister. From evidence provided by the Wheat Wheat growers want to know exactly what Export Authority during last week’s esti- the minister and the government were told mates process, we know that this process and when they were told. And it is also im- was ongoing and that the results were passed portant that any inquiry is constituted in such on to the agriculture minister in annual con- a way as to give legal protection to wit- fidential performance monitoring reports. nesses. I have been contacted by a number of Representatives of the WEA told the esti- wheat growers, and organisations represent- mates committee last week that the authority ing wheat growers, who want to put what examined AWB’s contracts for the sale of they know about this scandal on the public wheat to Iraq. And we know from the Vol- record. And the best way to guarantee legal cker report that former AWB Chairman protection for these people—these potential Trevor Flugge has said in evidence that witnesses—is to constitute the inquiry as a AWB’s Iraq contracts included inland trans- royal commission. port components. These are the same trans- If the Prime Minister remains true to form port components that, according to Volcker, we will end up with a half-baked, limited rose from $10 per tonne to $56 per tonne inquiry with limited terms of reference that between 1999 and 2003. seeks to take the heat off the government, the The WEA’s own performance monitoring Prime Minister and the trade and agriculture framework is set out on its web site and it ministers and put it back on the wheat grow- clearly says that it monitors freight costs. A ers of Australia and the AWB. The opposi- 400 per cent increase in freight costs in any tion will have none of this. Minister, this is a market should have set off alarm bells in the really slow burn. WEA. If the authority was doing its job Mr BAIRD (Cook) (4.03 pm)—I am very properly it ought to have investigated this glad to support the minister today. Having alarming increase in the cost of freight listened to the member for Corio in that long, within Iraq and asked detailed questions of turgid exposition that was complicated and AWB. And it ought to have immediately re- inexplicable, I do not understand what it was ported details of its investigation and find- about. ings to the minister. Keep in mind that the Opposition members interjecting— minister at the time received confidential performance monitoring reports. Mr BAIRD—I am just saying what a complicated, turgid review it was. It fol- Any inquiry into this utter fiasco must lowed the motion before the House of the have terms of reference that allow it to ex- member for Griffith. The real reason for that amine the role played by the WEA and to motion was that the member for Griffith has find out exactly what information was passed had spotlight deprivation this week. The

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 99 roosters have had all the attention. The the previous administration. This will be a ‘Blond ambition’ article in the Good Week- fair dinkum inquiry—the Prime Minister has end magazine highlighted the member for announced it—and it will produce and pro- Griffith as the next leader of the Labor Party vide answers to the allegations that have opposite. We have seen it highlighted. He been made by the members opposite. needs to be up there. That is the real reason What are the facts? The facts are that in that the member for Griffith has brought this 1996 the oil for food program was set up by matter into the House today. the United Nations. It was decided a sub- He has done his best with this—he has committee of the United Nations Security called it a scandal—but he is missing the Council would administer it, so UNSCR 986 spotlight this week. The opposition talk was formed and it was their job to supervise. about scandals but I certainly know of one It was not as though a subcommittee in this organisation that has been to the Saddam parliament, set up by the government and Hussein finishing school on scandals—the made up of government members, super- Labor Party, which approved and went into vised it or as though it was to be supervised the Centenary House deal. This did not in- by the Minister for Trade, the Minister for volve any third party, as we have in this mat- Foreign Affairs or any other minister; it was ter with the UN. This was a direct deal done to be administered and scrutinised by the by the Labor Party. The Centenary House United Nations Security Council subcommit- deal resulted in a highly inflated price and tee. They reviewed the contract and they re- they scooped out the money on the side. So viewed continuing contracts by the Austra- if the Volcker inquiry had looked at Centen- lian Wheat Board as they came up, and they ary House it would have said, ‘This is one of gave their approval. There were complaints the worst examples of a scandal in the Sad- made about the contract, albeit from a com- dam Hussein true tradition of rorting.’ It was petitor, and perhaps that is why they did not a $40 million rort of the first order. take it as seriously as they should have, but it We have heard claims about the independ- was they who had the responsibility to call in ent inquiry the Prime Minister has said he the auditors and to do a complete review. It would set up into this. There is no doubt that was not the responsibility of the ministers, it the findings of the Volcker inquiry were sig- was not the responsibility of Austrade and it nificant. The amount of money that was fun- was not the responsibility of DFAT. It is nelled out of this program was a disgrace. highly insulting to officers of DFAT to ac- There is no need to consider it: the position cuse them of some type of rorting going on of the government is that it was a disgrace. within the department itself. How insulting That is why the Prime Minister has set up the to DFAT officials who provide a very signifi- inquiry. The opposition says that it will sim- cant and high level of competent administra- ply be a whitewash of the situation. tion and who are doing their job. The last time, in my memory, that the A week ago several of us went to Bagh- Prime Minister set up an inquiry, it was in dad. We flew into Baghdad in Black Hawk relation to the Cornelia Rau case. The Palmer helicopters escorted by Apaches. One of the inquiry made very significant recommenda- things that strikes you when you go into tions, and they were acted on. That was no Baghdad is that dominating the skyline are whitewash. The government does not set up the Saddam Hussein palaces. You have that the bogus type of inquiries that we saw under experience when you are there. Another building is the Baath Party headquarters—it

CHAMBER 100 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 is a bit like Sussex Street in Sydney—which the country and he put all of the money that dictated, dominated and ran the activities. Of was coming in from the oil revenue into con- course, the Labor Party claim this scandal structing these huge palaces. He diverted the occurred under this administration, but if it Euphrates River to make this huge lake in were not for this side of the House Saddam front of some of the palaces in Baghdad.’ Hussein would still be running the show and And the members opposite would want to Saddam Hussein would still be running his see that regime continued. palaces which are scattered around the coun- If the Labor Party are serious about talk- tryside, ripping off the wealth of the country ing about the corruption of the Iraqi govern- for his mates and his own family. ment, let us put it all on the table—the hu- The Australian Embassy is located in the man rights abuses, the rorting, the gross eco- former home of Uday Hussein, who was one nomic dislocation of the country and what of the sons of Saddam Hussein. It is a very Saddam Hussein subjected the Iraqis to. The large building in the green zone of Baghdad. Iraqis have major problems with salinisation This is what the Labor Party would have. right across their agricultural sector, the agri- They are now saying, ‘You allowed this to culture sector has been put into disrepute and happen.’ But what did they allow to happen they are asking Australia for assistance in and continue? They were prepared to let the trying to put their agricultural sector back Saddam Hussein era go on—an era of total together. The Australian government has corruption, an era of huge human rights been involved in a number of grants to Iraq abuses. Saddam Hussein personally and his to assist them in rebuilding the country. Baathist regime are seen as being responsible In the allegations today the Labor Party for the deaths of some 300,000 people in are accusing the AWB of rorting and of set- their own country of Iraq. We think of how ting up a deal with the Saddam Hussein re- many people were lost in the war with Iran gime when, in fact, several things are quite and of the Scud missiles fired into Israel, and clear. One is that the responsibility for moni- they would have allowed it to go on. toring this contract was that of the UN Secu- Now, in absolute hypocrisy, the Labor rity Council and they monitored it all the Party come into the House to talk about one way through. Two is that the opposition did area administered by the UN in which they not at any time ask any questions about that. are accusing this side of the House of some They are now saying, ‘Why didn’t you do degree of complicity in an underhand opera- something?’ If they are so smart, why didn’t tion. Let us get real. It is this side of the they ask questions about it? But there was House that has removed the Saddam Hussein not one question in this House. Three is that regime. People might say, ‘Why didn’t they it is most important to remember the Prime just take this one person out?’ We actually Minister has acknowledged the Volcker in- went there and we listened to the Governor quiry findings and has said he will set up an of Al Muthanna province, we listened to the independent inquiry, and then we will find Speaker of the House and the provisional the real results. Let us get real. If you want to government and we listened to parliamen- talk about rorting, look at Centenary House tarians. The Speaker said, ‘What you need to and at what the Labor government did to find understand is the way Saddam Hussein de- out what real rorting is all about. (Time ex- stroyed this country from one end to the pired) other. He took away all resources from the countryside. He neglected agriculture across

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 101

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR (4) Schedule 1, items 133 to 135, page 93 (line Causley)—The discussion is now concluded. 30) to page 95 (line 13), omit the items, substitute: LAW AND JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SERIOUS DRUG 133 Paragraph 47(4)(b) OFFENCES AND OTHER MEASURES) Omit all the words after “destruction,”, BILL 2005 substitute: COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT (FILM or its use: DIRECTORS’ RIGHTS) BILL 2005 (i) in committing, continuing or repeating an offence against this CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT Act; or (COMMONWEALTH GAMES) (ii) in committing, continuing or BILL 2005 repeating a contravention of a Assent civil penalty provision; Message from the Governor-General re- (5) Schedule 1, item 136, page 95 (lines 15 and ported informing the House of assent to the 16), omit “(within the meaning of paragraph bills. (a) of the definition of that expression)”, substitute “in respect of an offence against THERAPEUTIC GOODS AMENDMENT this Act, in respect of a contravention of a BILL 2005 civil penalty provision or in respect of both”. Report from Main Committee (6) Schedule 1, items 138 to 140, page 95 (line Bill returned from Main Committee with 19) to page 96 (line 30), omit the items, sub- amendments; certified copy of the bill and stitute: schedule of amendments presented. 138 After paragraph 48J(2)(b) Ordered that this bill be considered imme- Insert: diately. or (c) for the purposes of an investigation Main Committee’s amendments— as to whether a civil penalty provision has been contravened; or (1) Schedule 1, item 131, page 93 (lines 25 and (d) to enable evidence of a contraven- 26), omit “(within the meaning of paragraph tion of a civil penalty provision to (a) of the definition of that expression)”, be secured for the purposes of civil substitute “in respect of an offence against proceedings; this Act, in respect of a contravention of a civil penalty provision or in respect of both”. 139 At the end of subsection 50(2) (2) Schedule 1, item 131, page 93 (after line Add “in respect of an offence against 26), at the end of the item, add: this Act, in respect of a contravention of a civil penalty provision or in re- Note: The heading to section 47 is altered by spect of both”. adding at the end “and civil penalty provisions”. Note: The headings to sections 50 and 51 are altered by inserting “and civil penalty provi- (3) Schedule 1, item 132, page 93 (lines 28 and sion” after “Offence”. 29), omit “(within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition of that expression)”, The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR substitute “in respect of an offence against Causley)—The question is that the amend- this Act, in respect of a contravention of a ments be agreed to. civil penalty provision or in respect of both”. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to.

CHAMBER 102 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

Third Reading MIGRATION AND OMBUDSMAN Mr LLOYD (Robertson—Minister for LEGISLATION AMENDMENT Local Government, Territories and Roads) BILL 2005 (4.15 pm)—by leave—I move: TAX LAWS AMENDMENT That this bill be now read a third time. (SUPERANNUATION Question agreed to. CONTRIBUTIONS SPLITTING) BILL 2005 Bill read a third time. Referred to Main Committee AUSTRALIAN WORKPLACE SAFETY STANDARDS BILL 2005 Mr BARTLETT (Macquarie) (4.17 pm)—by leave—I move: NATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH That the bills be referred to the Main Commit- AND SAFETY COMMISSION tee for consideration. (REPEAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) Question agreed to. BILL 2005 MAIN COMMITTEE Returned from the Senate Native Title Committee Message received from the Senate return- Reference ing the bills without amendment. Mr BARTLETT (Macquarie) (4.17 DEFENCE LEGISLATION pm)—by leave—I move: AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 2005 That the following order of the day, govern- First Reading ment business, be referred to the Main Committee for debate: Bill received from the Senate, and read a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title first time. and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Ordered that the second reading be made Fund—Second interim report for the section an order of the day for the next sitting. 206(d) inquiry: Indigenous land use agreements—Government response—Motion to take HIGHER EDUCATION LEGISLATION note of document: Resumption of debate. AMENDMENT (2005 BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2005 Question agreed to. Consideration of Senate Message COMMITTEES Bill returned from the Senate with Electoral Matters Committee amendments. Report Ordered that the message be considered at Mr ANTHONY SMITH (Casey) (4.17 the next sitting. pm)—by leave—I present a corrigendum to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters entitled The 2004 federal election: report of the inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 federal election and matters related thereto. Public Works Committee Report Mrs MOYLAN (Pearce) (4.18 pm)—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Com-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 103 mittee on Public Works, I present the 20th plus associated landscaping, site works and and 21st reports for 2005 of the committee services upgrade. relating to proposed CSIRO Minerals Labo- In evidence submitted to the committee, ratory extensions at Waterford, Perth, and the CSIRO stated that the proposed works proposed fit-out of new leased premises for would also permit future expansion at the AusAID at London Circuit, City, ACT. Waterford site. Considering the rapid growth Ordered that the reports be made parlia- of the facility, which is due in part to West- mentary papers. ern Australia being such a major mining Mrs MOYLAN—I seek leave to make a state, the committee wished to know when short statement in connection with the re- CSIRO expected there to be a requirement ports. for further expansion and, if this requirement were already known, whether it would be Leave granted. more cost-effective to enlarge the scope of Mrs MOYLAN—The proposed exten- the current proposal. CSIRO responded that sion of the CSIRO Minerals Laboratory at future growth would depend upon co- Waterford, Western Australia, is intended to investment from industry, but the current provide accommodation for an additional 30 proposal should satisfy requirements for the staff; provide improved amenities for staff, next decade. CSIRO explained that research students, collaborators and visitors; replace programs can fluctuate over time, so it would existing substandard seminar and canteen be unwise to construct buildings that may facilities; redress current inadequacies in stand empty for some period. In view of this, respect of storage and technical support CSIRO submitted that the current proposal amenities; improve efficiency and communi- represents the optimum use of capital and cation among staff, students and collabora- resources. tors; and create safe, consolidated and acces- In reviewing the work, the committee was sible accommodation for research instru- particularly pleased to receive evidence from ments. The enlarged minerals laboratory, other minerals research bodies, all of whom together with developments proposed by welcomed the proposed extension project as Curtin University of Technology, will be part the first step in the development of a world- of a proposed new world-leading minerals class minerals and chemistry research and research and education centre. The estimated education precinct at Waterford, which will cost of this work is $12 million. enable Australia to retain a competitive posi- The CSIRO has had a minerals research tion in the global minerals industry. The capability in Perth since 1984—and, may I committee therefore recommends that the say, they do a fine job, as does Curtin Uni- work proceed at an estimated cost of $12 versity of Technology. The laboratory exten- million. sion project was prompted chiefly by the The committee’s 21st report for 2005 ad- continued increase in staff numbers at the dresses the fit-out of the new leased premises Waterford facility, which reached full capac- for the Australian Agency for International ity in 2002 and has since relied on demount- Development—otherwise known as able annexes to house staff, students and AusAID—in London Circuit, City, ACT. The support functions. The extension project will works will be carried out in the new building comprise the development of some 3,200 known as ‘London 11’ at an estimated cost of square metres of extensions and 550 square $9.5 million. AusAID currently occupies metres of alterations to existing facilities,

CHAMBER 104 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 premises at 62 Northbourne Avenue, City, ther, AusAID anticipates that its new lease ACT, which it has leased since 1987. will lead to substantial operational savings The need for the proposed work has been which will more than compensate for any prompted by the expiry of AusAID’s present rental increases. lease on 31 July 2007; ageing infrastructure AusAID reported that construction of the and services in the current 30-year-old prem- new building will commence in January ises, and associated high ongoing mainte- 2006 and expects that both the base building nance and refurbishment costs; the inability and proposed fit-out works will be com- of the current premises to meet modern stan- pleted by May 2007. The committee ex- dards in respect of occupational health and pressed some concern at the short time frame safety, disability access, security, building but was assured by AusAID that the property code requirements, ecological sustainability developer has sufficient expertise to con- and energy efficiency, general amenity and struct a commercial building. Further, presentation; the inflexible design and low AusAID’s decision to carry out an integrated proportion of usable floor space at the cur- fit-out will result in a more efficient process. rent premises; and, finally, the fact that the The committee was pleased to note that current leased area, 9,556 square metres, is AusAID had taken steps to minimise its ex- slightly surplus to the agency’s needs. posure to risk by including stringent penalty The fit-out of AusAID’s new premises clauses in its agreement with the developer will include the integration of electrical, me- and through its active contingency planning chanical, communications, security, fire and processes. Having thoroughly examined all hydraulic services into base-building works, evidence put before it, the committee was and tenant fit-out above the base building, happy to recommend that the fit-out works including reception; executive offices; work- proceed at an estimated cost of $9.5 million. stations; meeting spaces; computer room; In closing, I once again acknowledge the storage, conference and training facilities; support of my colleagues on the committee employee amenities; and secure areas. and of the secretariat, which works enor- In scoping the proposed work, AusAID mously hard—21 reports in a year; normally considered three options, including undertak- 10 represents a very busy year. My thanks ing an extensive upgrade at its existing prem- also go to Hansard for the help they give us ises, relocating to an existing building and in the field, recording the proceedings of our relocating to new purpose-built premises. public hearings. I commend the report to the The third option was preferred as an upgrade House. would not sufficiently address all the short- WORKPLACE RELATIONS comings of the current premises and, whilst AMENDMENT (WORK CHOICES) AusAID received submissions relating to 12 BILL 2005 existing buildings, none of the proposals sat- Second Reading isfied its stated requirements. The committee Debate resumed. was informed that AusAID had obtained advice from a registered valuer, a quantity sur- The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR veyor, an architect and engineers to the effect Causley)—The original question was that that the proposed new premises represent this bill be now read a second time. To this better value for money than the other sub- the honourable member for Perth has moved missions received in the tender process. Fur- as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 105 words. The question now is that the words pages—with an explanatory memorandum of proposed to be omitted stand part of the 565 pages—which made it impossible to question. read before the bill was debated. But I have Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (4.26 pm)—Last gathered from dipping into it that this legisla- week saw a vicious and unprovoked attack tion confirms all of Labor’s criticisms of the on the working conditions of Australians government’s plans. with the introduction of the Workplace Rela- Unfair dismissal rights are gone for nearly tions Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005. four million workers. For example, individ- This bill has no redeeming features and at- ual contracts will be able to cut take-home tacks the fundamentals of working condi- pay. With respect to basic conditions, the tions in this country. It has particular ramifi- award safety net is to be removed, as is the cations for those people who work in the no disadvantage test, which underpins work- regions. I believe the people of Australia will place bargaining. The real value of minimum not take kindly to these bully-boy tactics. wages will be allowed to fall and workers There has been no proper reason given for will have no enforceable legal right to collec- this legislation. As they say, ‘If the system tively bargain. This legislation tears up 100 isn’t broke, why fix it?’ Where then is the years of the social contract in Australia. economic reason—or any other reason—for Since Federation, our industrial relations this legislation? system has been built on the idea that ordi- In his speech the member for Wentworth nary, hardworking Australians get to partici- was arguing classic economics to justify this pate in the benefits of economic growth and bill—that labour costs have to go up and that there are protections for people when down, like everything else in the economic times get tough. The federal government’s system. When you talk about things going up laws will attack this system. and down in this bill you are not talking Under these laws, unions and workers can about the price of spuds, wheat or roofing be fined $66,000 for even asking for workers tiles; you are talking about the quality of to be protected from unfair dismissal or indi- people’s lives going up and down. Their abil- vidual contracts or for clauses that protect ity to feed their family fluctuates as a result job security. The government is knowingly of the domino effect throughout the system. misleading the public. Australian working The PM says that having a job is what it is families who are only just keeping their all about. It is not only about having a job heads above water will be severely impacted but about having a job with fair wages and by these changes. Penalty rates, public holi- conditions, which we on this side of the days, overtime pay, control over the roster, House would call the dignity of labour. The shift penalties—none of these conditions will union movement has correctly identified the be protected by law. impact of the new workplace legislation in- Union members have been joined by the troduced into federal parliament, which will broader community, who care about decent strip away 100 years of respect for workers’ rights and conditions in the workplace, in rights, remove legal protection for many em- opposing these laws. These changes were not ployment conditions and set a whole new put before the Australian people at the last low for future workplace conditions of Aus- election. This is a disgrace. The first oppor- tralian workers. We have now seen the legis- tunity for the Australian public to demon- lation. As I have observed, it has 687 strate their opposition to these laws is the

CHAMBER 106 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 national day of community protest in No- ployers, who may be very good and fair peo- vember. The sad thing about this legislation ple. It seems even the government does not is that we have been inundated with advertis- really trust decent employers. Just take the ing that is just plain deceitful, as the Prime ‘prohibited content’, for example— Minister and his government have repeatedly employment conditions and allowances that and steadfastly refused to guarantee that are not allowed to be part of any employ- Australian workers will not be worse off as a ment agreement. But there is no description result of their changes to the industrial sys- of this. The minister only has the ability to tem. declare such content under regulation. It is It seems very clear that the laws will allow too bad if the employer believes this is a Australian workers to be sacked at any time, fairer way to go! without the right to claim unfair dismissal, Both the bill and the explanatory memo- because of economic or technological rea- randum do not state what ‘prohibitive con- sons or if a business wants to restructure op- tent’ might mean. Despite this, any attempt erations. It could be interpreted that reorgan- to include prohibited content in an agreement ising the parking outside someone’s business will lead to a ‘civil remedy provision’. We could be a reason to sack an employee or the have to ask: on whom and what? The penalty whole work force. I could say we are enter- is 60 penalty units for doing so—apparently ing a new era in industrial relations, but it is that is worth a $33,000 fine. It is okay to more like going backwards into the future, spend $55 million on an advertising cam- where there are no safeguards for the work- paign which purports to depict a new era of ing people any more. freedom of choice, but in reality the minister We have been led up the garden path by can intervene at any time in any agreement this government with dishonest promises. It and strike it down. I am sure Mr Jones in makes me think back to George Orwell’s Animal Farm would be delighted with this Animal Farm. We are in the position the sort of power. Where is the deregulation and animals were in after the revolution—things flexibility in that? are reverting to capital’s bidding through a The legislation that we are struggling greedy regime wanting absolute power. It through—the masses and masses of pages— does not matter that the story was based on sets about dismantling our industrial rela- Stalinist Russia; the resemblance to today is tions system that has stood us in good stead quite frightening, and I think the Australian through some pretty tough times in the last public are waking up to it. 100 years or so. What for? Where are the The government is using fear tactics to get economic arguments to back up these more laws changed to prevent criticism. Whether flexible arrangements? Parliament was told from outside the country or within, those fear that there had been no advice given by tactics are a good way of drawing attention Treasury on the economic benefit of this away from workers’ loss of rights. Remem- workplace reform. Here is one of the biggest ber in Animal Farm when the new set of changes to the way workplaces go about rules came in? ‘Four legs good, two legs bet- dealing with their work forces—and no-one ter’. Exchange the ‘legs’ for awards and we has done any research into the economic ef- start to see some real comparisons. There is fects of such changes? I think someone is an attempt to dumb down the work force so telling porkies somewhere. We know that it is unable to assist itself against the em- New Zealand’s productivity is half that of Australia’s since they went down this road. I

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 107 suggest that maybe they have found that the an inoperable handbrake, compromising its economy will not necessarily benefit from safe use. This sort of thing is happening these changes—that they will lead to insta- without further deregulation of the work- bility in the work force. Maybe capital will place. What are we going to be getting into go looking offshore for a more compliant when these new laws come into being? work force. We do not think Australians are This government is trading safety for going to accept this without a fight. some mythical flexibility, which it controls I do not believe we want to compete with anyway. I say we must resist. We must fight India or China in the low-wages stakes. I these changes. We must fight them in the think we can compete with those countries workplaces; we must fight them in the street. better if we maintain our standards and de- We must involve families whose children velop our training of Australian workers so will be a target of such systems, with family that their skills are sought after all over the values being sold down the drain. We must world and in Australia. Let them produce stand up for the rights and conditions of better goods and better services. We have workers, many of whom fought for us. Our many shortages in all fields. How is this leg- mums and dads are being let down by this islation going to solve this? government. Their struggle now becomes our Yet this is where we are heading—with struggle. low wages, poor conditions and occupational We must fight and we must never give in. health and safety being disregarded. Who is This is Labor’s heartland under attack. We going to complain about an unsafe work- must take the stand. Many of our supporters place if they are on casual work and may not may go to jail; many may have to fight court be picked up the next day if they complain cases. But we have made the commitment. about anything? I have seen this already ap- When Labor are re-elected, this proposed ply in my own state of Tasmania. insidious system will be thrown out. Labor In fact, we had a case finalised in the will ensure that it will be replaced with courts the other day where a company finally proper conditions and best practice and will pleaded guilty to charges arising from the ensure that any changes are with the full ad- death of a 16-year-old boy in Launceston last vice and consent of the union movement and year. He died from head injuries when the other advocates. forklift he was driving toppled over. By I oppose this bill in its entirety—the pleading guilty, the company avoided a trial whole box and dice. The bill is not a fair bill and therefore having to answer questions as and it will not add to the prosperity and con- to why the boy was on the site at the time of ditions of most Australians. I will not rest till the accident, why he was driving the forklift it rests where it belongs. I will put it into the that he was unauthorised to drive and had no wastepaper basket where it belongs, to be licence for, and why the subcontractor had recycled along with all the other propaganda brought the young man in in the first place. that this government has put out to be The company knew what was going on and pulped—that it has wasted in trying to justify took no steps to stop it, to provide training this bill and bring it into existence. I oppose for the forklift or for safety procedures the bill. I will continue to oppose it for a long around the site. The forklift was inspected time to come. after the accident. It was found to have tyres Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (4.41 pm)— underinflated, tread missing from a tyre and The heart of this debate on the Workplace

CHAMBER 108 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill such as public holidays, rest breaks, incen- 2005 lies in the ability of our country to tive based payments and bonuses, annual build on our strong economy—to create leave loadings, allowances, penalty rates and more jobs, to build on productivity levels, to shift/overtime loadings; preserve specific create more national wealth for both em- award conditions such as long service leave, ployers and employees and to secure a future superannuation, jury service and notice of for our nation that will be prosperous for termination for all current and new award everyone. As Terry McCrann wrote in the reliant employees; and permit other award Daily Telegraph: conditions such as annual leave, per- The Government’s industrial relations reforms are sonal/carer leave and parental leave to apply sensible and moderate. They are the minimum to current and new award reliant employees necessary for Australia to survive and prosper in if they are better than the conditions pro- the 21st century. vided in the standard. It will also encourage The future prosperity of our nation is exactly employers and employees to resolve their why I became interested in politics to begin disputes without the interference of third with. The ‘light on the hill’ had gone out for parties, by introducing a model dispute set- our nation under the previous Labor gov- tlement procedure. ernment, which left this country with a $96 Local businesses have told me that they billion debt, left the economy in tatters and want these reforms and Work Choices be- put unemployment into record levels. cause they will balance the rights of workers Since 1996, this government has worked with the rights of employers. They see the hard to reduce that debt and bring unem- current regulations as unfair and unjust. The ployment down to historically low levels. It small businesses in my electorate have put has provided the foundation for a strong and their houses and family savings on the line to secure economy. Unemployment in Paterson, build up their businesses and in turn employ for example, has gone from 10 per cent in people in those businesses. Many of those March 1996 to 6.2 per cent in June 2005. But would only employ a small number of peo- we still have much more to do. That is what ple, but they are the ones taking the major the Work Choices bill is all about. risks to keep their businesses running, to The bill contains a range of measures. It make them grow and to employ local people. will simplify and create a national workplace Creating investment opportunities and relations system; create the Australian Fair strengthening the measures that have already Pay Commission to set and adjust minimum been put in place by this government to build and award classification wages; enhance a strong and secure economy is what is compliance with the Workplace Relations needed in regional areas like Paterson. We Act; enshrine in law minimum conditions of have seen enormous investment in our re- employment; create a greater emphasis on gion—for example, at Newcastle airport direct bargaining between employers and Qantas subsidiary Jetstar, through its engi- employees; improve regulation of industrial neering infrastructure, announced earlier this action while protecting the right to take law- year a $29 million investment in expanding ful industrial action; retain a system of the facility. The expanded maintenance facil- awards that will be simplified to ensure that ity hangar is to support Jetstar’s Airbus A320 they provide minimum safety net entitle- fleet and its maintenance needs. At the time, ments and protect certain award conditions Jetstar employed 25 apprentices out of their total of 82 employees at the airport, but that

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 109 expansion means an extra 50 jobs over five Black bans would have seen our production lines years, which include the provision of more already under threat from overseas imports apprentices rolled out over that period. brought to a standstill with the consequence workers being stood down without pay and the As a nation we need to capitalise on our factory shut down. existing economy by putting these reforms Regardless of the threats, negotiations went ahead into place and to position ourselves to be and proved fruitful to both parties with rises and able to be flexible and compete with other pay bigger than that demanded by the union and countries. Work Choices is about business better conditions to boot. and workers working together. I have an ex- This resulted in higher production levels and im- ample from a Paterson resident, who has ex- proved standards of workmanship. perienced negotiations with an employer As a consequence workers voted to exclude the first-hand. This resident worked for 34 years union from any further future discussions on pay as a factory employee at Bankstown. In her and conditions with our employer. letter, she wrote: All conditions affecting worker safety, future Allow me to voice my support here for the Gov- wage negotiations, were dealt with directly be- ernment in their reform endeavours and recount tween employee delegates and the employers what happened between my former union, the management. This occurred in just about all cases Federated Rubber Workers Union, and my 200 in a harmonious and amicable atmosphere. fellow factory workers in 1996. As you can see, if in 1996 two hundred workers We entered into wages negotiations with our em- drawn from all ethnic backgrounds could band ployer and the company said they couldn’t afford together and tell the union stand over heavies to the union’s demands. rack off, that we would conduct our own negotia- The union immediately pushed for all workers to tions with management, why shouldn’t nine years strike but the workers rejected this union demand on this myth of union being the workers friends and said they didn’t want to go on strike. be laid to rest once and for all time. Consequently the 200 employees held a meeting This is yet another example of the unions with no representatives of the Rubber Workers representing the needs of the union officials Union hierarchy present. and not those of the workers. It is no wonder Two delegates representing the workers in each union membership is at an all-time low level department were elected to negotiate directly with of 17 per cent. They still do not understand the employer body over wages and conditions. that it is the workers’ interests they are sup- This move was agreed to by the company and posed to be representing, not their own. negotiations began. This legislation will replace an industrial Previously under union demands each wage rise relations system that was designed over 100 had been brought about with the threat of strike action which did not accomplish anything for the years ago with one simple national work- workers except loss of income and a breaking place relations system. It will remove red down of harmonious relationships with the tape and the 130 different pieces of industrial bosses. legislation and over 4,000 awards currently As a consequence of our elected worker involve- in Australia across six states. I can give an- ment in our own wage negotiations, without the other local example of how these different bevy of union heavies being involved, we the awards are affecting local people. There was workers were threatened with court action by our a letter to the editor in this month’s Medowie own union and the company intimidated with Murmurs that highlighted how ambulance threats of black-bans against suppliers of materi- officers work under different awards. It said: als to the factory.

CHAMBER 110 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

... in the Ambulance Service, there are Ambo’s sure that others will come in and use greenfields working together in the same vehicle doing ex- costs or foreign structural advantages to devastat- actly the same work while being paid under dif- ing effect. Ansett is a stark reminder of what hap- ferent awards. pens to airlines that cannot change. Some enjoy the benefits of the Hunter award As I said, the Qantas subsidiary, Jetstar, while others are under the state award. The person based in my electorate, is extremely impor- under the Hunter Award will receive substantially tant. If you want to look further afield, the more pay: a higher loading on Saturdays and OECD wrote in their economic survey of Sundays and also receives more annual leave than Australia this year: his/her counterpart on the State Award. Further unfinished business includes harmonisa- If the ACTU and the ALP were fair dinkum about tion of federal and state industrial relations and equality in the workplace and workplace entitle- the streamlining of regulations which minimise ments, they would have corrected these very un- the incidence of unlawful industrial action. fair anomalies long ago. Frankly, it is not surprising that the vast majority In the Hunter region the Hunter Business of people have decided to opt out of unions in Chamber had this to say in a media release recent years. The ALP and ACTU have lost their on 2 November: identities and now just resort to political tactics to The Hunter Business Chamber welcomes the try to regain their past popularity. All the ALP tabling of the Federal Government’s new work- seems to do is protest against every change the place relations legislation which introduces nec- government seeks to introduce without regard to essary reforms that will ensure workplaces in whether it really is in the best interests of the Australia continue to thrive. country or the people. It went on to say: The world has changed and the policies of 20 or The legislation delivers significant improvements more years ago are just not appropriate for the to existing unfair dismissal laws, draws together present global economic situation. To follow the over time State and Federal awards and will assist archaic philosophies of the ALP is to take a road in the reduction of industrial action. to economic ruin. The move to replace six separate systems with This is an excellent example of how working one national workplace system, the reforms to be Australians doing the same job are not prop- made to the unfair dismissal regime and the erly rewarded for their work under the cur- greater flexibility this will afford within the rent arrangements and it is another example workplace are vital for continued business of why we need to simplify into one national growth. system. It is not just workers and employees Unfortunately it is a message that Labor do in Paterson who see it; it is also industry not want to hear or they have chosen to ig- groups. The Business Council of Australia nore. Very sadly, they are using the situation says: of the Boeing workers at Williamtown for We believe workplace reform is a key element in political purposes instead of addressing real maintaining the economic growth which under- issues within our economy that are holding pins Australia’s enviable standard of living. back future prosperity. Geoff Dixon, from Qantas, said this last On the issue of the Boeing workers, it is month: very disappointing to see Labor and the un- ... we welcome the Federal Government’s pro- ions using striking workers as political posed changes to the industrial relations system. pawns to turn the dispute into their platform They will give established, successful companies for media exposure. Yesterday both parties like Qantas greater flexibility to adapt to chang- were before the Australian Industrial Rela- ing market conditions. Because if we do not, be

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 111 tions Commission as a result of the AWU’s collective agreement, while Boeing says that application to the AIRC for a secret ballot to the 93 per cent of their work force chose in- be taken in relation to the implementation of dividual contracts three months ago and that collective agreements for all workers. The that should apply. Williamtown site currently employs 87 full- I sincerely hope that all parties can work time employees out of a total Boeing work together on this dispute and that the union force of 400. All of these employees are on does not use these workers to score cheap individual common-law contracts. They are political points when, quite clearly, the relocated across three sites: Williamtown, forms introduced under this bill have not Oakey and Amberley. Boeing sent all em- been put into law so cannot impact on their ployees a letter proposing changes and im- current dispute. As I said earlier, these re- provements that recently came out of a work forms are a necessary part of the framework force focus group. These proposals were sent we need to put in place to allow further to all 400 employees who were on those in- growth, a flexible market place and a modern dividual contracts and asked them whether economy. They are necessary for small busi- the improvements resolved the issues. They nesses in my electorate to prosper, and they were afforded the opportunity to sign the are necessary to keep our nation on track to letter to alter their existing individual con- compete with the rest of the world. I strongly tracts whilst, at the same time, the AWU was commend this bill to the House. urging them not to sign the letter. The result Ms CORCORAN (Isaacs) (4.55 pm)— was that 93 per cent of the work force signed This Workplace Relations Amendment up. (Work Choices) Bill 2005 sets out to do The work force made a very clear choice. many things, and I will not be talking about However, 25 of those workers—all at Wil- all of them here today. The legislation goes liamtown—did not accept those proposals on for something like 600 pages, and there and are on strike. At Williamtown, 62 out of are another 600 pages of explanatory memo- the 87 who are currently employed choose to randum. I want to talk about just a few of the work under the contracts and they cross that features of this legislation but, before I ad- picket line every day to attend their employ- dress the substance of the bill, I would like to ment. The AIRC took submissions from both make a point about the odd name of this bill. parties, Boeing and the AWU. The commis- We are getting used to this government call- sion recommended that the parties use the ing things by misleading names, and this bill opportunity of being at the commission to is no exception. To call this bill ‘Work talk together about their issues. The commis- Choices’ is really over the top. There will be sioner recommended the parties arrange for no choice for most workers under this legis- talks today, and the commission facilitated lation. Employees will be asked to sign an those arrangements. Both parties have agreed Australian workplace agreement, which is to talk. However, I need to make it clear that another example of a tricky name but I will this dispute has nothing to do with these re- not go into that here. The reality is that most forms before the parliament today, despite employees will be told to sign the ‘agree- the gross misinformation that has been put ment’ or go away. The only person agreeing out by the union and Labor members oppo- will be the employer—the employees will site. From my understanding, the union not get much choice; it will be a take-it-or- wants to prove that the majority of Boeing leave-it agreement. aircraft engineers and technicians want a

CHAMBER 112 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

Most people are not able to negotiate ef- The Prime Minister is content with the fectively with an employer or a potential prospect that Billy, who is unemployed and employer. The power difference is one factor who wants a job, is more or less forced into in this before any other matter is considered. accepting this job. I do not mean necessarily I think that most employers are keen to be that someone is physically standing over fair to their employees, but some are not. Billy, although I do not altogether dismiss However, even the fair employers can be the possibility, but the pressure on Billy to intimidating to a new employee, particularly accept this job will be overwhelming. This young people or people moving into the sort of response from the Prime Minister work force after a time out of it for whatever confuses a number of things and indicates his reason. These people are not in a position to arrogance in the whole IR debate. He just look after their own interests properly. wants the debate to go away and for the new If we are dealing with an employer who is regime to get started. He is not particularly not constrained by notions of fairness, the concerned about what it means for employ- situation is even worse. On Lateline recently, ees on the ground. The Prime Minister is the Minister for Employment and Workplace confusing issues of employment—or the lack Relations was asked about a situation where thereof—for individuals with decent working a worker was concerned about negotiating conditions and living standards in Australia. with his or her employer. The minister was If these new laws allow an employer to take good enough to acknowledge the point but on someone new on different, cheaper over- then revealed his own remoteness from the all rates and/or conditions from others al- real world by suggesting that employees ready on the job, the pressure to move eve- were at liberty to bring their accountant ryone on to the new, less advantageous con- along to negotiate on their behalf. I wonder ditions will be huge. Eventually this will just how far removed from reality are this happen, of course, even in the best of work- minister and this government. places. Recently in question time the Prime Min- Others refer to this phenomenon as ‘a race ister was asked about the fairness of a situa- to the bottom’. It means that this government tion where a young person is forced into is happy to see the working conditions of signing an AWA that significantly reduces Australians fall to those of some of our Third the conditions that normally apply to the job World neighbours. The Prime Minister says in question. In the example used, ‘Billy’ was that this will not happen because labour is offered an AWA which explicitly removed scarce at the moment and therefore employ- award conditions for public holidays, rest ees are in a strong position to negotiate. This breaks, bonuses, annual leave loading, al- is clearly nonsense. There are always indi- lowances, penalty rates and shift and over- viduals who have unusual or unusually time loadings. The Prime Minister’s response highly developed skills who can have a go at was an impatient flick of the hand and the naming their price, but this is not so for the comment that Billy was better off with any bulk of the working population. Australia, by job under any conditions rather than having and large, enjoys good and decent working no job at all—in other words, the Prime Min- conditions, but we did not get these by acci- ister acknowledged that Billy was being of- dent or through the good intentions of em- fered a job with substandard conditions. ployers. These were fought for long and hard by workers and their representatives—the union movement—and we are not about to

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 113 give them away. We are not a Third World range ... and we’re doing moderately well on the country and we do not intend to move in that employment scale. direction. He says further on: The Prime Minister correctly says that we ... out of the six countries with the highest levels need a good, strong economy in order to con- of employment, only one has less employment tinue to thrive. What he is forgetting—or protection than Australia. Each of the other five— maybe just ignoring—is the fact that a good Switzerland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden work force is critical to a strong economy. If and Denmark—has more protection, and sometimes significantly more, yet is performing better the government does not understand that we in terms of providing employment for its citizens. should ensure that employees have decent working conditions and a fair say in how This Work Choices bill will establish a na- they work just because this is the right thing tional workplace relations system, or a uni- to do, then he should at least understand that tary system. The government wants to do this a strong and committed work force is neces- because it says that the existing system is sary to ensure that the economy thrives. confusing and unwieldy. I agree with the principle behind this proposal—if we were The editor of Australian Policy Online at setting up a brand new industrial relations the Swinburne Institute for Social Research, system in this country, one national system Peter Browne, wrote an interesting piece for would, indeed, be sensible. But the point is the Canberra Times today. He argues that the that we are not starting from the beginning; link the Prime Minister is trying to make we are in a situation where we have a num- between labour market regulation and em- ber of state and federal systems already in ployment is not convincing. He writes: existence. If the government were serious Unemployment rates are a highly unreliable indi- about changing this aspect of our system it cator of the comparative health of labour markets would be doing this in consultation with the in different countries ... they can leave out a large various state governments. Instead we find group of potential employees: those individuals who have dropped out of the jobless statistics ourselves in a situation where the govern- altogether, switching to disability payments, for ment is issuing ultimatums to the states. The example, or living off savings. Prime Minister announced this policy pro- A much more reliable measure is the proportion posal without letting the states know before- of the working-age population in each country hand, and without any indication that he was who have a job. The OECD provides these figures interested in consulting with the state gov- for each of its member countries, and they give a ernments—hardly a cooperative approach to different picture of which countries are doing well the matter. One can be forgiven for suspect- for the working population. ing another agenda here. The OECD has also developed an index of em- It gets worse though. The government is ployment protection, designed to measure “the relying on the corporations power to get a strictness of employment protection legislation” unitary system in place. This will leave out for each of these countries. all those workplaces which are not incorpo- When we match up of the two sets of figures— rated. The government’s own estimate is that employment rates and the job protection index— coverage will be between 75 per cent and 85 for Australia and 16 comparable OECD countries, an interesting pattern emerges, and it doesn’t offer per cent. This is hardly a good way of re- much support to the Government. Australia is moving complexities or confusion. It will already in the bottom half of the job protection simply add more.

CHAMBER 114 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

The legislation will establish an independ- Prime Minister’s actions. In four of the past ent body to be called the Fair Pay Commis- nine years, the Howard government has pro- sion. I have already talked about tricky nam- posed a minimum wage increase less than its ing habits, so I will let this example go own inflation forecast, a result that would through without comment, but there is ample have delivered in effect a drop in the mini- material here for those who want to pick it mum wage in real terms on four separate up. This body—the Fair Pay Commission— occasions. is to be charged with the responsibility off- The Prime Minister is being less than setting and adjusting minimum and award honest in claiming wage rises since 1996 as classification wages; minimum wages for his own. The first time this present govern- juniors, trainees/apprentices and employees ment made a submission to the national with disabilities; minimum wages for piece safety net review was in 1997. If we look at workers; and casual loadings. wage increases since 1997, we see that they Many members on this side of the House have increased not by 12 per cent but by 9.17 have been asking the government to guaran- per cent in real terms. Had the Howard gov- tee that workers/employees will not be worse ernment’s submissions to the AIRC been off under this new Fair Pay Commission. accepted from 1997 through to 2005, there There are three points worth making here. would have been a real reduction in the The first point is: why do we bother asking minimum wage of 1.55 per cent and not the this government to give any commitment? 9.17 per cent real increase granted by the What is the value of any commitment that AIRC, which the Prime Minister in any this government gives anyway? Accepting a event opposed. commitment assumes a degree of trust, It is with some trepidation that we rely on which I certainly do not feel towards this the government’s record as the guarantee that government. We remember the ‘kids over- wages will be okay. This reliance has fallen board’, we remember the never, ever GST over at the very first hurdle. The government and we remember the ‘rock-solid, ironclad’ has announced that the next minimum wage medical costs safety net guarantee and we do increase will be determined by the new Fair not feel very reassured. The second point is Pay Commission and that it will be done six the arrogant way the Prime Minister shrugs months later than usual. off questions about minimum wage guaran- Mr Bevis—Without fairness. tees. The Prime Minister constantly answers with the arrogant line that his record is his Ms CORCORAN—Without fairness, I guarantee. This is no comfort at all—I would am reminded. This means that something argue, in fact, that it is just the opposite. like 1.7 million low-paid employees will have to wait at least 18 months until any pay The third point is, indeed, the Prime Min- increase from their current level will even be ister’s record—the one he asks us to rely on. considered. That is an extra six months of The Prime Minister is very fond of saying waiting for 1.7 million working Australians that under his government wages have in- and their families struggling enough to make creased by 12 per cent in real terms. It is true ends meet. This is a very poor start to this to say that they have increased by 12 per cent new regime of industrial relations. since 1996. But it is not accurate for the Prime Minister to claim responsibility for Another aspect of this legislation which is this—these increases have occurred despite unacceptable is the removal of the right of an the Prime Minister and not because of the employee to apply for remedy if he or she is

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 115 unfairly dismissed. A number of small busi- available to small businesses to assist them ness people I have spoken to tell me that they to understand their obligations about termi- are worried about the current unfair dis- nation of unemployment; and removing con- missal laws. They tell me that it is impossi- tingency fees for lawyers, if not removing ble to dismiss an employee or that it is too the lawyers altogether. The answer to the hard to fight an unfair dismissal claim. We existing problems is not to remove unfair hear about paying ‘go away’ money being dismissal provisions. The answer is adjusting the inevitable result of trying to dismiss an the rules to ensure the system works prop- employee regardless of the rights or wrongs erly. of the situation. The government has talked about remov- I know that, when I was in the position of ing unfair dismissal laws for some time. Ear- hiring and firing, the existence of these laws lier legislation talked about organisations actually helped me and the organisations I with fewer than 20 employees being exempt was working for. On the few occasions when from unfair dismissal laws. This legislation I was in a position of having to consider ask- here today moves the magic number to 100 ing someone to leave, I went through careful but adds other factors which effectively procedures to make sure that I was being means that all employees are now not cov- quite fair both to the organisation and to the ered in cases of unfair dismissal. I object to employee. The provisions of the unfair dis- these changes, firstly, because they are inher- missal laws were useful in developing these ently unfair and, secondly, because the ex- procedures. By going through the process of tension of this to organisations with fewer setting out what the problem was, why it was than 100 employees was never talked about a problem and the various ways of address- in any pre-election promise or commitment. ing the problem, we found that either the The Prime Minister was challenged on problem was able to be fixed or, if not, the this point in question time recently. The grounds for dismissal were solid and clear. I member for Throsby asked the Prime Minis- am not saying that this made dismissing any- ter to point out where in the government’s one easy, but at least I knew that I was being 1996, 1998, 2001 or 2004 election commit- objective and fair about it. ments was the proposal to abolish unfair There are some problems with the current dismissal rights for employees in companies unfair dismissal arrangements, and Labor of up to 100 employees. The member for acknowledges these and has proposed Throsby went on to suggest that this proposal changes to address them. The changes in- emerged only after the government realised it clude: requiring the Australian Industrial had total control of the Senate. The Prime Relations Commission to conduct concilia- Minister’s answer was gleeful. He said: tion conferences at the convenience of the Can I say to the member for Throsby, at my recol- small business; encouraging the use of tele- lection of the last document, there was no refer- phone conferencing to assist small busi- ence made in either the 2004 policy or the 1996 nesses that have difficulty attending hearings policy to a particular number. In other words, in person; allowing the commission to order both in 1996 and 2004 there was a reference to costs against applicants who pursue specula- getting rid of them altogether. tive or vexatious claims; legislating an in- That was a very tricky answer to a straight- dicative time frame within which the com- forward question. I would like to read out mission should deal with unfair dismissal parts of a letter published in the Business Age applications; making better information

CHAMBER 116 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 on 27 October 2005. It was written by Gary In addition, the brother, correctly, pointed out Fallon of Noble Park. Gary said: that in the area near the plant there is a large number of households containing single mothers I operate a part-time business consultancy spe- who will be compelled to work under the changes cialising in the small and medium enterprise sec- to single-parent mutual obligation rules. Thus, to tor. I would like to share the views of one com- use his reasoning, the Government’s welfare re- pany that approached me to consult to it, on the forms will deliver this company low-cost labour proposed changes to IR. through compulsion. This company stands out as an example of the I— way in which workers can be abused by the proposed changes. Gary— … … … made the observation that productivity would fall with the removal of experienced operators, only The company is highly profitable ... and is to be told that the siblings had factored this in and owned by a brother and sister ... and inherited the considered the productivity loss irrelevant be- company on the death of their father two years cause they would clear the $700,000 additional ago. net profit from their new workforce. Despite its profitability, the company is relatively dysfunctional, with low staff morale stem- The points made by Mr Fallon are that these ming from a constant comparison of the siblings’ new laws make it very easy for unscrupulous management style with that of their late father, employers to remove employees without any and a general “us and them” mentality growing risk of penalty and for these employers to between the proprietors and their staff. then replace these people with others who The owners have signalled that when the new are more or less forced to take up jobs at IR legislation is passed they will sack all 67 proc- much less than the current going rate. This ess workers. move has nothing to do with increasing pro- … … … ductivity; in fact, the company has factored The company then intends to replace the pre- into its sums a fall in productivity. sent workforce with the same number of casual This legislation, being sold to us as neces- employees on AWAs and pay the absolute mini- sary for the good of our economy, will lead, mum wage that they can get away with, plus the in this case, to 67 people losing their jobs, basic statutory employment conditions. The others gaining substandard employment and higher pay scales, permanency, penalty rates, shift a fall in productivity, with an immediate in- loadings and other benefits now enjoyed by this crease in take-home profits for the owners— company’s workforce will be converted into profit (not productivity improvements) for the a massive short-term advantage for two peo- owners. With a degree of glee, I was told that this ple at the expense of 67 employees and a increase in net profit—again, not productivity— disadvantage in terms of productivity. This will be more than $700,000 a year, or $350,000 legislation is clearly unfair to very many for each of the owners. people. The arguments that it will be good … … … for our economy are less than convincing, The company would list the positions with a and it will lead to a fall in the living condi- government Job Network Provider so they could tions of many people. This legislation is all get employees (free of any recruiting charge to about the government’s hatred of the union the company), who would be compelled to take movement. It will create hardship without the positions at the minimum wage level offered any offsetting benefits, and it needs to be under the threat of the removal of their welfare consigned to the bin. payments by Centrelink.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 117

Mr BARTLETT (Macquarie) (5.14 working conditions, wages and employment pm)—The debate on the Workplace Rela- prospects for the people of Australia. tions Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 The other fact that is worth considering is has been marked by a very clear contrast this: on average, people on Australian work- between rhetoric and fact. On the one hand, place agreements, those agreements intro- we have had hyperbole, exaggeration and duced under the first round of reforms to scaremongering from the Labor Party and introduce more flexibility, are earning 13 per their trade union partners. Supposedly, there cent more than people on certified agree- will be massive job losses, wages will be ments and 100 per cent more than people on slashed, working conditions will worsen, awards. These earnings are not just restricted there will be widespread industrial unrest to one or two industries. For example, a and anarchy and the very fabric of society comparison between the average total will be threatened. These claims are almost weekly earnings of people on AWAs and the identical to the ridiculous claims we heard in earnings of those on awards indicates that the 1996 from the Labor Party and the union earnings of people on AWAs are 30 per cent movement prior to the first round of indus- higher in the mining industry; 68 per cent trial relations reforms. These misleading higher in manufacturing; 49 per cent higher claims have been backed up by a series of in electricity, gas and water; 78 per cent union advertisements that are clearly factu- higher in the construction industry; 126 per ally incorrect and blatantly misleading. cent higher in the wholesale trades; 37 per Compare that rhetoric, scaremongering cent higher in accommodation, cafes and and hyperbole and those exaggerated claims restaurants; 40 per cent higher in the retail with the facts. The facts are these. First of trade; 47 per cent higher in transport and all, let us look at the record of what has been storage; and 254 per cent higher in commu- achieved since the first round of industrial nications services. The fact is that right relations reform under this government. We across industry, right across the different sec- have had over 1.7 million jobs created in the tors in this country, people on Australian last nine years, with more than half of those workplace agreements are earning substan- being full-time jobs. We have had a rise in tially more than people in the award system. average real income of 14.9 per cent, com- The facts stand in very clear contrast to the pared with just 1.2 per cent over Labor’s 13 rhetoric and the scaremongering that we years. We have had a rise in minimum real have heard right through this debate from the wages of 10.7 per cent, compared with a fall other side. of around five per cent over Labor’s 13 However, we cannot rest on our laurels. years. We have had the lowest level of indus- We need to continue to build on these re- trial disputation since records have been forms. Almost every independent economic kept—around 90 years. We have had a fall in commentator says that this is what needs to unemployment—from 8.5 per cent to 5.1 per happen, that we need to take it further. The cent. In fact, Access Economics estimated IMF, for instance, says: that if it had not been for the reforms that ... this improvement in flexibility, supported by this government has introduced, unemploy- increased competition ... and other structural re- ment probably would be about two to 2½ per forms, has been an important contributor to Aus- cent higher than it currently is. So the record tralia’s excellent record of job creation and pro- very clearly shows that the first round of in- ductivity growth during the past 14 years ... dustrial relations reforms delivered improved … … …

CHAMBER 118 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

... the proposed industrial relations reforms are That is exactly what we are trying to do, and further steps in the same direction which will if the opposition would support us we would improve the functioning of the labor market and do it even more quickly. help sustain Australia’s strong economic performance in future ... A number of other commentators have been looking at the legislation over the last … … … week. An editorial in the Australian just last ... the benefits of economic reforms in Australia, week said: including improvements in the functioning of the labor market, have been substantial, and this The workplace reforms are necessary to keep the gives a sound basis for expecting positive results economy expanding so it generates more and from further labor market reforms. better paying jobs. For all their arguments about equity, advocates of the old labour system do the The Reserve Bank says the industrial rela- poor no service. Rather, they protect the 20 per tions reforms so far have: cent of workers who prosper under the industrial ... meant that the economy can run faster without awards system that assumes all workers and generating inflationary influences to the extent workplaces are exactly the same. that used to be the case. The Adelaide Advertiser said: The Governor of the Reserve Bank says: The industrial relations reforms are long overdue So I think there’s undoubtedly value in industrial and this package appears to protect workers while relations reform. offering much-needed flexibility, particularly for The World Bank, looking at evidence from small business. around the world, says: Terry McCrann, from the Telegraph, said: Heavy regulation of dismissal— The government’s industrial relations reforms are in other words, the unfair dismissal type of sensible and moderate. They are the minimum necessary for Australia to survive and prosper in regime— the 21st century. is associated with more unemployment ... flexible … … … labour markets, by contrast, provide job opportunities for more people, ensuring that the best We needed one national system 30 years ago; in worker is found for each job. Productivity rises, the globalised world of today, sustaining overlap- as do wages and out put. ping federal and state systems is sheer and uniquely Australian lunacy. So there are more jobs and higher wages with industrial relations reform. The OECD We could go on. The Labour Prime Minister says: of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, said: To further encourage participation and favour ... fairness at work starts with the chance of a job employment, the industrial relations system also in the first place, because if we ... do not make needs to be reformed so as to increase the flexi- Britain— bility of the labour market, reduce employment and the same thing applies to Australia— transactions costs and achieve a closer link be- a country of successful businesses, a country tween wages and productivity. where people want to set up and expand, and a … … … country that has the edge over our competitors, The Government is now in a position to address then we are betraying those we represent. these issues and should proceed as soon as practi- Could I say to the Labor Party that that is cable. what their opposition is doing: they are betraying those they purport to represent. The best chance of a job, of higher wages and of improved living standards comes with a

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 119 strong economy with higher productivity. up our market and increasing flexibility. The first round of these reforms has already Those opposite can continue to stick their delivered those things and these reforms will heads in the sand, but the reality is that, continue to build on that. unless we continue to encourage flexibility There is a raft of protections built into and improve productivity, we cannot build these reforms to make sure that workers are on the living standards we have seen in this protected. The fair pay standard and the en- country. These reforms are the best chance of hanced role of the Office of Workplace Ser- continuing to strengthen our economy, the vices will ensure that workers are protected. best chance of securing Australia’s economic Contrary to the claims of the other side, we future and the best chance of delivering are not removing workers’ rights, we are not higher wages, greater job security and higher cutting minimum wages, we are not remov- living standards to Australian workers and ing awards, we are not allowing workers to their families. be sacked at will, we are not removing the Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (5.22 pm)— right to join a union, we are not outlawing Like all good politicians, I look at issues on union agreements and we are not taking the basis of how many votes you are going to away the right to strike. These are ridiculous win and how many votes you are going to claims. Rather, we are protecting the rights lose. My personal feeling is that the govern- of workers, while at the same time introduc- ment will probably lose on both counts with ing the flexibility that will allow increased the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work productivity and economic growth. Choices) Bill 2005. One would hope that The bottom line is this—and the Labor most members, when they analyse these Party and anyone who is honest knows it: the things, will decide on what is best in spite of evidence shows very clearly that an overly how the votes fall. In the industrial relations rigid, overly structured and overly regulated system that we have enjoyed for the last 100 labour market cannot provide protection for years, there is great unfairness for small workers. We saw this in the recession in businesses insofar as they do not really have 1990-91, the recession we supposedly had to the ability to understand all the ramifications have, in which one million workers were of awards and so they get themselves into a thrown out of work. We saw it with the re- lot of trouble. I will endeavour to move an duction in minimum real wages over Labor’s amendment in this place that will exclude 13 years. A rigid, inflexible labour market small businesses that employ fewer than 20 cannot protect workers. The evidence around people from actions which will take them the world shows it. In France, Germany and backwards. To illustrate what I mean, I will Spain, those heavily regulated members of use an example that I noticed was used by the OECD, unemployment is running at one of the other members. It is the example around 10 per cent. In countries with more of a person who is employed in a small busi- flexible labour markets, such as Australia, ness—a little five-employee cafe. This per- New Zealand and Britain, unemployment is son gets angry with his employer over some- around four per cent—in Australia’s case, thing and makes a complaint to the industrial five per cent. A heavily regulated labour inspector. The industrial inspector finds that market cannot protect workers. The best way for four years the person has been working to enable workers to improve their chances for half an hour after five o’clock and should of a job, to achieve higher real wages and to have been paid penalty rates all that time. achieve higher living standards is by freeing Two of the other employees also pull the

CHAMBER 120 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 same stunt, with the net result that the busi- era—when there was a dispute between an ness is bankrupted, it closes its doors and employee and an employer they would go seven people, including the husband and out onto the grass. Then the arbitration wife proprietors, lose their jobs in a small commission came in, and it made a determi- town. The desirable outcome is that we go nation, and both sides had to accept that de- back five weeks and pay them for those five termination. My experience is that neither weeks. Those people had been working for a side is usually pleased, but we get on with protracted period of time under conditions the job and the business continues. With this which they had accepted, so that outcome is bill, there will be no arbitration commis- only right and proper and fair to the em- sion—that is being removed. ployer. It is not easy to move an amendment Listening to speakers on the government along those lines, but I will endeavour to do side, I think 90 per cent of the problem is so. ignorance. They really do not understand Another issue is the right to hire and fire. what is going on here at all. There will be a It seems to me that an employer, whether we fair pay commission and it will set minimum are talking about a big corporation or a little standards. My first job was at Mount Isa fella, really has to have an unrestricted right Mines. I was on about double the basic to hire and fire. I do not agree with the oppo- wage, working as an unskilled labourer. I sition that we should have a situation in think I was on about $65 a week—average which people cannot hire and fire. It is ex- weekly earnings were about $40 a week. But actly the same principle as the right to with- the miners were on a colossal, whopping draw your labour. The people on the gov- $500. When you added the lead bonus, pen- ernment side will apply the principle that the alty rates, a shift allowance and a living in employer has the right to hire and fire, but the west allowance, you came up with the they will not give the same privilege and colossal figure of $500. Much of the Austra- rights to the worker—an unrestricted right to lian work force today has those kinds of ar- withdraw their labour. Those are two areas in rangements. The unions or their collective which I would disagree with one side and action secured that extra $450 that those with the other side. miners were enjoying at my first work place. I have noticed that an awful lot of speak- We will still have the minimum pay, the ba- ers do not understand what is happening here sic wage—that will be delivered by the fair at all. Like some others in this place, I played pay commission—but, for anything above rugby league for most of my life, and more that, you will be in the jungle. recently I have been an official. What will Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay, I spent happen with this bill will be like playing some of my convalescing time—you can football without a referee. From my experi- commiserate with me, having had the same ence of playing football without a referee, I problem—writing a history book of Austra- reckon someone is going to get killed—an lia. The chapter on the modern era is called: awful lot of people get very badly damaged ‘Rule of law or fang and claw?’ What you when you play football without a referee. have here today is fang and claw—a rever- Prior to 1901, 1902 or whenever it was sion to the jungle. That is what is happening that the industrial arbitration commission here today. We are playing football without a was introduced—in Queensland it was intro- referee. duced, with all its rigours, in the post 1915

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 121

From now on, above that very low-level by a pretty fair margin—because the em- base of fair pay, it will be a case of the law of ployers in Australia are no longer Austra- the jungle: you can sit out on the grass as lians. Our employers are foreigners, so the long as you like and starve to death and less money that goes into the workers’ pock- when you come back with your tail between ets, the more money goes overseas. your legs the employers will pay you noth- We have had numerous speakers getting ing. If it is a contest, my money is well and up and saying how wonderfully the economy truly on the employers. During my time in is going. I will tell you something. Someone politics, whenever something has come for- said—I will not say where this is from—that ward, the first question I always ask myself the economy had plateaued out and could be is: who is going to win out of this and who is expected to stay at the present successful going to lose? We can switch the television level indefinitely into the future. That was a on any night of the week and see all the comment that was made by arguably the workers screeching that they are going to leading economist in the United States in lose—they are saying that this is terrible— August 1929. Every single economic indica- and all the employers, including the big cor- tor that you could point to in the United porations and the Business Council of Aus- States in the middle of 1929 was showing tralia, trumpeting that they will do terrifically that they had a boom that had been unprece- out of it. So we know who the winners and dented in human history. But speculation was the losers are. There is not a person in this creeping and beating out there; it was a country who does not understand that. boom created by speculation. We have heard all these great geniuses There was a marvellous heading to a getting up in this chamber and saying how Maxine McKew interview in the Bulletin wonderful this will be for productivity. I was magazine some months back. It said that quite a successful businessman before I came Australia was in an artificial boom created into parliament—and for a long time after it, by property speculation fuelled by overseas too. I have not had time to fool around with borrowings which have to be repaid. That is business over recent years, but I have been in profoundly true. If you want to have a look the marketplace and I have stayed alive on at how well this country is going, compare it my wits, my resources, my risk taking, my to other nations. If you take away the mining hard work and whatever else you need out industry—and it will be taken away there in the market place. Of all these people shortly— who have been giving us lectures, there may Mr Hockey—What? Why? be four or five who have been successful businessmen—there probably are but I do Mr KATTER—It is interesting that the not know one of them who has been. The minister asks: why? I am going to explain vast bulk of them would not have a clue what this to him, because he is an intelligent min- the hell they were talking about. ister and he deserves an explanation. We have had the ball game to ourselves. We are In small businesses—particularly in coun- a big country. We are a new country. We try towns—if the worker has less pay in his have not been mined. Other countries have pocket then there will be less money going been mined and the easy stuff has been through the till in the local clothing store. It mined out. But there are two countries is very simple. If there is less money going which, for political or historical reasons, through the till in clothing stores, small busi- have never been mined—Mongolia and Rus- ness in this country will suffer—and suffer

CHAMBER 122 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 sia. They have four or five times the land- and that sounds terrific—except that, if you mass of Australia. do a lot of homework, you find out that the Minister, listen to what I am saying. It is numbers of people on disability pensions profoundly important that you hear what I increased by 396,000 above what they nor- am saying. Russia has four times our land- mally increase by. You do not have to be a mass. It has never been mined. I can tell you genius. We have heard the Treasurer and the that Mr Urquhart was a famous international Prime Minister saying that we have a very miner when Mr Hoover became President of serious problem with the disability pensions. the United States. He got the first mining We have doubled taxation. This govern- going in Russia, but when the communists ment, which everyone lauds as being for pri- took over they booted him out and no-one vate enterprise, has doubled taxation. I would touch Russia with a 40-foot pole for asked: ‘Where the hell has the money gone? the next hundred years. I haven’t seen any of this money in Kennedy. Mr Hockey—Where did they get their Where has it gone?’ There are only two areas gold from? Where did they get their oil of the economy which increased over CPI. from? One was health, by $30,000 million, $40,000 million or whatever it was, but the colossal Mr KATTER—Yes, there was some gold increase was in welfare, in the order of and some oil and some aluminium mined, $70,000 million or $80,000 million in a but there is a difference between the level of budget of $200,000 million. That was the mining taking place in Russia and the level order of the increase. It was absolutely co- of mining taking place in Australia. I am sure lossal. That is where the increase occurred, that the honourable minister, if he were an and it occurred because there are all these investor, would not have been investing in extra people on disability pensions. There are any mining ventures in Russia or Mongolia all these people who have decided to stay in the last hundred years. But now these home and look after their kids as single places are expected to come on stream. mothers. God bless them for doing it. But do The minister may not be aware of this but not come in here and quote figures to us I strongly recommend he speaks to some of which, if you have any brains or any energy the bigger mining people in Australia. I have to do homework, you must know are fla- had the very great honour of speaking to grantly deceitful, if not mischievous. them from time to time. They give us eight Let me move on. Mr Keating in fact was or nine years of mining, at the outside. Some the great deregulator of the wage structures of them are quoting me figures of as little as in Australia, and every trade union official I two years—and then the party will be over. I know will take it back to the days of Mr most certainly know that to be profoundly Keating. When Mr Keating removed the tar- true. We hope it is not as bad as some of iffs, I was absolutely fascinated that a Labor them are speculating that it will be. government would do that. This was incredi- People come in here and quote the unem- ble, because only two things can happen: (1) ployment figures to us. Don’t they do any you close down industry or (2) you work for homework at all? My figures are a few years coolie wages. There is no in between. We old, but I am sure that when they are updated had 12 American members of parliament up it will be the same trend. Yes, when the in North Queensland recently, and I had the Treasurer gets up and says, ‘We reduced un- honour of going to dinner with them. I said, employment by 400,000,’ this is true. He did, ‘Well, you blokes have your huge subsidies,

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 123 of course; you’re laughing.’ And they said: you free up the labour market then there is ‘You’ve got to have subsidies. How are you only one thing that can happen. going to compete against China if you ha- In South Africa they decided to bring in ven’t got subsidies?’ And all of them, cheap labour, predominantly from Europe. whether Democrat or Republican, said: They decided to bring in cheap labour be- ‘That’s right. We can’t compete against cause, they said, they could not work the China unless we get subsidies and protec- mines without cheap labour, so a massive tion.’ number of people came in on six-month But this government thinks it is the only permits. Suddenly the South Africans woke nation on earth that does not have to have up one morning and said, ‘You Europeans: any tariffs or subsidies. I am sorry; you can- go back where you came from.’ In Australia, not. You are running a current account deficit on the aeroplane three days ago, I was talk- which is the highest in the OECD. You are ing to one of the contractors. I asked, ‘How exporting nothing. When I say that, we are are you going for labour?’ He said: ‘The new still exporting a lot of things, but all of them government arrangements are terrific. are really on the decline. In agriculture and They’ve really done a good job.’ I said, manufacturing there is a spectacular decline. ‘Yes?’ He said: ‘We have 12 tradesmen, and Mr Hockey—That’s not right. Tourism’s we got six of them from Indonesia. They up. It’s our biggest export. work for very reasonable pay and conditions.’ I am sure they were very reasonable. Mr KATTER—I take the point by the So one can see where we are going here. minister, and I think—in fairness to him, it is a serious question—that tourism will in- If you want to know what happens when crease. But my reason for saying that is that you deregulate, ask the wool industry. They tourism is cheap labour country. Korean were deregulated. Within four years, they wages, as a lot of people are probably aware, had lost 50 per cent of their income. Ask the are probably higher than those in Australia dairy industry. Within four years of their de- now. They are most certainly soaring past us. regulation, they had lost 30 per cent of their As we become cheaper in wages, I think income. Ask the tobacco industry. Sorry— tourism will improve, and God bless the you cannot ask the tobacco industry. There government, the minister and everyone for ain’t any tobacco industry after their deregu- trying to get money in from that sector. But I lation. am only talking about $4,000 million or We know what it is like when you live in $5,000 million in a problem of $200,000 the jungle. Prior to 1901 in Australia, we million. The current account deficit is not lived in the jungle. It was fang and claw. that high, but it is very high. Where we are going now, the free market is Mr Keating decided that either we were going to look after it. Let us have a look at going to close industry or we were going to how the free market looked after us. The ma- work for coolie wages. It gives me great sad- jor industry by far and away, the overwhelm- ness to say that there is no doubt in my mind ing, singular industry in this country, was about what this government intends, whether mining. One in 32 people who went down intentionally or not—the ‘intend’ word leaps those mines perished, and perished by the to my mind—because that is what must hap- most dreadful and horrible deaths. That is not pen here. If you have no tariff protection and a figure picked out of my head; that is a figure emphasised by the leading Australian

CHAMBER 124 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 historian, in my opinion, Geoffrey Blainey— real wages for ordinary working men and a great doyen of the conservatives. That is women have increased by 14.9 per cent, the figure that he cites in his book, effec- compared to a 1.2 per cent increase by the tively. One in 32 died. previous Labor government during their 13 In the sugar industry we had thousands, years at the helm. It has been during these literally, die of Weil’s disease until we took years that the unemployment rate has de- collective action, which will become almost creased to the lowest level in 30 years and impossible under these laws that we are pass- over 1.7 million new jobs have been created. ing here today. They say every man can look And it has been during these years that in- after himself. Tell that to the men who died dustrial disputes have decreased to their low- in the cane fields of Weil’s disease. Tell that est levels since 1913, when records were first to the men who went down the mineshaft kept. and died dreadful deaths from miners’ phthi- We know the opposition believe that the sis or worse. Tell it to them. industrial relations fairy fixed all of this in There is the proposition that the checkout 1996, but the truth of the matter is that these chick at Woolworths is going to go and nego- achievements can be attributed to another tiate a good wage for herself. Are these peo- great event in 1996: the election of the How- ple serious? Has a miner or a sugar mill ard government. These achievements are the worker got the time or the knowledge to be achievements of this government, through its able to work out a private agreement? Of partial deregulation of the workplace rela- course they have not. This is about going tions system in 1996 and its strong economic back to the period prior to 1901. If they ac- focus. Now is the time to secure the future cuse us of moving into the future, this is prosperity of the workers of Australia and really back to the future. (Time expired) their families because, despite this government’s partial deregulation in 1996, Austra- Mrs DRAPER (Makin) (5.44 pm)—I rise lia’s workplace relations system is still crip- to speak in support of the Workplace Rela- pled by the complex, inflexible, operation- tions Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005. ally detailed award system and the confusing This bill will amend the Workplace Relations red tape associated with it. Act 1996 to create a more flexible, simpler and fairer system of workplace relations for The bill will simplify the complexity in- Australia. The bill will carry forward the herent in the existence of six workplace rela- evolution of Australia’s workplace relations tions jurisdictions in Australia by creating a system to improve productivity; increase national workplace relations system, based wages—not decrease wages; balance work on the corporations power, which will apply and family life—not destroy work and fam- to a majority of Australia’s employers and ily life; and reduce unemployment—not in- employees. Work Choices is about simplify- crease unemployment, as the opposition, the ing our workplace relations system. It is Labor Party, claim. about cutting red tape. It is about modernis- ing the way in which employers and employ- In the past 9½ years, Australians have ees relate to one another. It is also about witnessed the benefit of a strong national choice and flexibility. It is about fairness. economy, one of the strongest in the devel- But, most of all, Work Choices is about se- oped world. Credit for our strong economy curing the future prosperity of the workers of must go to the Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Australia and the national economy. This is Costello. It has been during these years that evolutionary economic reform the Australian

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 125 way, in a manner that advances prosperity 130 different pieces of employment related and fairness together. As the Prime Minister legislation and more than 4,000 awards. This has said on a number of occasions, these are tangle of regulation creates enormous cost big reforms but they are fair reforms. and complexity for employers and employ- The government will establish an inde- ees alike and is hindering flexibility and pendent body called the Australian Fair Pay choice. This hindrance is bad for business. It Commission to set and adjust minimum costs jobs and it is holding Australia back. award classification wages; minimum wages Work Choices removes this hindrance and for juniors, trainees, apprentices and em- enhances both flexibility and choice by cre- ployees with disabilities; minimum wages ating a single national system. We live in an for pieceworkers; and casual loadings. As the integrated national economy. Why would we Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard, has not want to work in one? stated on many occasions, no system of in- Work Choices will establish a body called dustrial regulation can protect jobs and sup- the Australian Fair Pay Commission to, as I port high wages if our economy is not strong said earlier, set and adjust minimum award and productive. This is the central lesson of classification wages; wages for juniors, 100 years of industrial relations history in trainees and apprentices; and wages for em- Australia. It is the bitter lesson of Labor’s ployees with disabilities. The Fair Pay recession in the early 1990s, the recession Commission will include members who have we had to have, with 17 per cent interest experience in business, community organisa- rates and over a million unemployed—and tions, workplace relations and economics let us not forget the l-a-w law tax cuts that and will make the wage-setting process sim- never happened. It is the lesson that the La- pler, fairer and holistic. bor Party refuses to learn. The key to ad- Along with wages set by the Fair Pay vancing prosperity and fairness together is Commission, the Work Choices legislation higher productivity. When productivity is enshrines minimum conditions of employ- higher, the whole economic pie is bigger. ment through the establishment of the Aus- Individuals and families benefit from more tralian fair pay and conditions standard. The jobs, more competition and higher living standard will apply to employees in the na- standards. tional system and will include the 38-hour One of the central focuses of Work week, four weeks guaranteed annual leave Choices is to encourage the further adoption and personal and carers leave, including sick of workplace agreements in order to lift pro- leave and parental leave, but provides that, ductivity and hence the living standards of where existing award conditions are more working Australians. It is not by chance that generous than the fair pay and conditions those industries that have the most work- standard, the award provisions will apply. place flexibility also enjoy the highest pro- Work Choices will preserve award condi- ductivity growth and the highest wages. We tions. need more choice and flexibility for both Mr Kerr—Unless you trade them away. employers and employees so that we can Mrs DRAPER—No. As I have just said, reward effort, work smarter and find the right Work Choices will preserve award condi- balance between work and family life. tions such as long service leave, superannua- At present, Australia’s workplace relations tion, jury service and notice of termination. system is comprised of six different systems, But it will not require these conditions to be

CHAMBER 126 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 included in the new awards, because they are or other mechanics in his small business, but already protected by specific legislation. he could not take the risk because he could Work Choices will also protect certain not wear the costs of an unfair dismissal other award conditions—for example, public claim. Once this legislation is passed, all holidays; rest breaks, including meal breaks; small businesses in Australia will have the incentive based payments and bonuses; an- opportunity to take on an employee or an nual leave loadings; allowances; penalty apprentice, if they so choose. rates; and shift and overtime loadings. These Today, all that stands in the way of further provisions are protected and can only be prosperity for the working men and women modified by specific provision in a new of Australia is the Australian Labor Party and agreement. If these entitlements are not men- opposition members, who, on economic mat- tioned in an agreement, the award provisions ters, are led blind by the union movement, will continue to operate. like a flock of sheep following their shep- Work Choices is a comprehensive policy herd. But even the ACTU was right about that will make Australia’s workplace rela- one thing: this government, under John tions system simpler and fairer. It will stimu- Howard, has been the best friend of Austra- late economic growth, increase productivity lian workers. These reforms will ensure that and benefit all Australians, their families and this remains the case. their living standards. It has support from I congratulate the Minister for Employ- some of Australia’s most recognised employment and Workplace Relations, the Hon. ers, including the Commonwealth Bank, Kevin Andrews, for his work. I also con- Qantas and Woolworths. Business groups, gratulate the Prime Minister for his tenacity such as the Australian Chamber of Com- in this area and for having the confidence of merce and Industry, Australian Business Ltd, the people of Australia such that they voted the Business Council of Australia, Australian us a majority in the Senate so that we can Industry Group, the Housing Industry Asso- pass this legislation. I commend the bill to ciation, Master Builders Association and the House. Business SA, have endorsed the reforms. Mr KERR (Denison) (5.56 pm)—The Independent experts, including the IMF, the saddest thing is that I fear the honourable OECD and the Reserve Bank, have stressed member for Makin, who spoke immediately the importance of further reform. If Australia preceding me, does not realise the Orwellian wants to remain a leading world economy, it nature of her remark that this government is has to move forward. the best friend that the workers have ever There has been much criticism of our had. I am charitable enough to believe that Prime Minister by the opposition, particu- she does not understand that of which she larly in relation to unfair dismissal laws— speaks, rather than to say that she is part of that he has wanted these reforms for 20 the cynicism surrounding the introduction of years. So he has and for good reason. All the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work small businesses have wanted the same re- Choices) Bill 2005, a bill with language such forms for 20 years. Perhaps I can add: so has as the ‘Fair Pay Commission’, which is de- my father, who has been a sole trader and, at signed to reduce the capacity to establish the age of 75, still works six days a week, minimum base rates to sustain the Australian from Monday to Saturday. He would dearly work force—particularly given that, as a have loved to employ a couple of apprentices commencing benefit of these new laws, the

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 127 next national wage case to be determined One proposition was that the national gov- will be delayed for at least six months so ernment should have no capacity whatsoever that, until then, we effectively have a wage to regulate working conditions and wages or freeze for 1.7 million workers. to settle industrial disputes, because, the ar- This evening, however, I want to speak in gument was put, those matters were exclu- relation to a number of matters that have not sively for the states to determine. Whilst cer- yet been given substantial attention. I want to tain industrial disputes had consequences look at the substantial change that the reli- across borders, the manifestation of each of ance on the corporations power, the destruc- those consequences was unique to each state tion of state industrial tribunals and the ren- and, therefore, nothing was to be taken away dering ineffective of state industrial laws will from that fundamental central right of a state bring to a system that has hitherto operated to be the master of its own destiny concern- within a robust federation. I want to draw ing the regulation and setting of wages and attention to those matters because they have the determining of industrial conditions in not only a number of direct consequences but those jurisdictions. also a number of long-term consequences, The other argument that was put forward which have not been raised in debate, for this by delegates was that there had to be certain nation and for the political parties that con- kinds of limited powers given to a national test elections. government, because industrial disputes pass By historical retreat, let us go back to the across state boundaries. The compromise time when our forebears constructed the position that was reached was that the dele- Australian Constitution. When the then colo- gates crafted an arrangement whereby the nies, now states, sent delegates to discuss national parliament was given a power not to forming an Australian federation, they in- set wages or to determine industrial condi- tended to form a national government with tions but to create a framework for the con- certain specified powers and for the residue ciliation and arbitration of industrial disputes to remain with the states. For much of Aus- extending beyond any one state. All matters tralia’s constitutional history, the Liberal that were contained within a particular state, Party has been a strong defender of the fed- other than where no dispute existed, would eral compact and has resisted the growing remain exclusively for that state, but, where centralisation of the authority of national an industrial dispute extended across the government. But there is no doubt that that borders of any particular state, there would historical legacy has been entirely overturned be a capacity not to determine national pay under the prime ministership of John How- rates or anything of that kind but to settle ard. This is a centralising government that, that dispute. by comparison, makes the Whitlam legacy Over the decades that followed, the arbi- look pale. tration system grew out of that, which ulti- One of the key economic distributors of mately made the Conciliation and Arbitration power across the Australian political federa- Commission the leading wage setter and the tion was the reservation to the states of the norm setter for Australian living standards. control and management of the industrial The last Prime Minister who seriously relations affairs of each jurisdiction. If you sought to remove those kinds of industrial go back to the pre-Federation debates, they safeguards, which we are about to remove, were centred around one of two propositions. was Lord Bruce, then Prime Minister Bruce, who lost his seat. He is the only Australian

CHAMBER 128 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

Prime Minister to have ever contested an for the kind of machinery that is being set election from government and not only had up. It would even extend to a law that would his government defeated but also lost his permit a minister by regulation to prescribe seat. corporation by corporation, or sector by sec- One of the central changes in this legisla- tor, wages that would apply, irrespective of tion is that, for the first time, the founda- considerations of the impact those wages tional element for the construction of indus- might have on the cost structure of a particu- trial laws shifts from the power to make laws lar business. It would also sustain the capac- with respect to conciliation and arbitration of ity to control prices. If you can control the industrial disputes extending beyond the cost of labour input, you cannot logically border of any one state to reliance on what is contain that power. If the corporation power said to be sufficient to sustain these laws— extends to the setting of prices for inputs, it the corporation power. I am not going to go also extends to the setting of prices for out- into the constitutional arguments that can be puts—the prices by which corporations place addressed as to whether or not that power is their commodities and services into the mar- sufficient to sustain these laws; it is suffi- ket. cient to say that there are very respectable The Labor government that will be formed arguments that can be advanced that suggest in the future will have the capacity to di- it is not. No doubt, those will be issues that rectly establish minimum benchmark stan- will be determined in the High Court of Aus- dards, without all this rigmarole about fair tralia, and I look forward to playing my part pay commissions, where the language is be- in those matters. ing rorted to such a degree, and also to estab- Constitutional validity aside, the funda- lish price control. Be careful what you wish mental philosophical difference is that, if the for; you might just get it. power extends, as enacted in this bill, to set I want to pause on this matter, because I up the instruments and machinery for the want to address some of the other conse- parliament to confer on bodies such as the quences that the Business Council of Austra- Fair Pay Commission a power to set wages, lia might not have contemplated in its enthu- it would also, by the same necessary logic, siasm for this legislation. One of those con- apply to the capacity of the parliament to sequences is that it will now have to deal directly determine those wages, by legisla- with a mountain of red tape of a degree to tive instrument. which the normal system of collective setting I say to organisations like the Business of wages has made employers immune. This Council of Australia and many others, and to bill does two things: (1) it privileges the in- the Prime Minister, in remembrance of Lord dividual agreement over the collective Bruce: be careful what you wish for; you agreement, and, (2) it privileges the collec- might just get it. If the legislation is sus- tive agreement over the award. tained, the nature of Australian politics In the past, there have been certain makes it inevitable that, at some stage, a benchmarks that have been normatively es- government better disposed to the industrial tablished. It is true that this bill will substan- interests of Australian workers will sit on the tially reduce the capacity of people to take government side of this parliament and will traditional industrial action, but it will not have the capacity to directly legislate to es- diminish the capacity of people to be ex- tablish national wage rates, without the need tremely dissatisfied with their workplace

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 129 conditions if those conditions distinctly dif- Mr Hockey—The Labor states referred fer in many different degrees from those who the power to the Commonwealth. You know are working alongside them. Nor will it cre- that. ate a circumstance whereby people will be The DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! immune from the predatory action not so There is too much noise on my right. much of unions in this instance but of legal Mr KERR—You can put yourself for- firms. ward and make that claim. Trade unions can- Why do I say that? Who advantages them- not do that; legal firms can. Obviously this selves most when new laws come forward? represents a significant market opportunity How was this bill actually drafted? Who for an entrepreneurial law firm—a law firm drafted it? Was it the professional legal ad- with a bit of industrial experience. What kind visers of the government employed in gov- of law firm might that be? I suspect it might ernment services? No. It was drafted by a be one or two of the law firms that actually large number of private law firms. Surpris- drafted this legislation. I suspect that some of ingly, some components of this legislation do the cheerful barracking that is coming out of appear to have a modest degree of self- the businesses that have signed up for this interest! sort of stuff may be a little muted when they Consider, for example, the way in which confront the kind of legal complexities that the bill provides for the capacity of persons are likely to arise in relation to the way in to negotiate collective agreements. If you are which this legislation is worked through and a trade union and you wish to negotiate a the new kinds of bargaining agents who take collective agreement, you can put yourself advantage of some of the opportunities that forward as the bargaining agent of the work- open up. ers who belong to your union in the work Let me go back to my starting point about force. You have to say: ‘I have five members federalism. We started out with a rather his- currently in the union. I can negotiate collec- torical introduction about the original intent tively for those. I can put that proposal for- of the framers of our Constitution to distrib- ward to the employer.’ Now consider the ute powers between a central government circumstance of another form of bargaining with substantial powers—but limited pow- agent, a lawyer that advertises their capacity ers—and states which still had substantial to negotiate a better deal for you. ‘I can do a legal and economic entitlements to their own better deal for you,’ says solicitor A. ‘I repre- future. This bill changes that very substan- sent a large firm. One of you needs to ap- tially. point me as your bargaining agent.’ New clause 9 of this bill—proposed new Mr Hockey interjecting— sections 7C(1)(a) and 7D(1)—overrides all The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AM state industrial legislation and all state Somlyay)—Order! The minister will cease awards and agreements contingent on that in interjecting. relation to any person who is employed not Mr KERR—Having been appointed as only by the Commonwealth but by any cor- your bargaining agent, the bargaining agent poration. States are deliberately intended to who is not a union can make a claim in rela- retain a residual jurisdiction that applies only tion to every employee. You do not need to to that small group of unincorporated asso- represent them; you do not need an authori- ciations—partnerships and the like—and sation from each of them. state public services. This will not be a

CHAMBER 130 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 happy position to be in, but it will not be a act—as it will be if this bill is passed and happy position to be in for the small busi- comes into effect—is on page 270 of the leg- nesses that are in that sector either. It will not islation. It intrudes in another way in state be a happy situation. jurisdictions. It says that even if you are still When these provisions come into effect under state law—if you are an employee or we will have the situation where a person employer of an unincorporated association who has been under state agreements will and not subject to these laws—or you are a have a transitional arrangement that comes public employee and you are likewise still into place under clause 360, schedule 15, of under state awards, then if you undertake any the bill. The awards and conditions or industrial action, even if it is lawful, even if agreements that they had previously continue it is authorised, even if it is permitted under to operate for a transitional period of up to a the terms of those agreements—guess what? maximum of three years, overridden in- Big Brother can step in. The Australian In- stantly if another agreement comes into ef- dustrial Relations Commission can come in. fect—one which sells off the benefits they If your industrial action represents a threat— have received under state awards. not a threat to the community but a threat to any constitutional corporation—guess what? But section 15 has a little stinger in it. A constitutional corporation is, yes, a trading Section 15 of schedule 15 has a little stinger or financial corporation formed within the that says that the minister may, by regulation, limits of the Commonwealth. That is any ban what is called prohibited content. We do company. not know what that prohibited content is, but apparently it reserves an unregulated ambit So any industrial dispute that emerges in a of discretion to the minister to say that cer- state—lawful, under those provisions—will tain entitlements that people currently have now become subject to federalised law. That under state laws will not be carried forward has not been discussed. It is a substantial into the future. cutting back on what has hitherto been a fundamental capacity of state jurisdictions to If we knew what the constraints around establish the boundaries of what is permissi- prohibited content were, we might be more ble within those jurisdictions. So we are con- benignly relaxed about this. But no, we are fronted with a very interesting political point asked to pass a pig in a poke, to push it in time: this government abandoning federal- through. Suddenly, we will discover that all ism and transferring its commitment to cen- those employees who were hitherto under tralism—that is, if this legislation survives state awards and protected under those juris- this constitutional attack, it gives to the par- dictions or who had state industrial agree- liament the power to directly prescribe prices ments suddenly are without those protections and incomes and, in the course of doing that, in relation to whatever elements, if these sabotage the industrial rights of Australian provisions are lawful and constitutional, are citizens both at a national level and— removed by the minister under these regula- particularly unremarked on in the debate so tions. Then we discover that not only is that far—directly at a state level. This is dreadful the case but, while people are under these legislation. But, remember, Prime Minister, provisions, all industrial action is prohibited. reflecting on the fate of Lord Bruce: be care- Another interesting provision that has not ful what you wish for; you might just get it. been discussed much is proposed section (Time expired) 111. Proposed section 111 of the principal

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 131

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) amount of money that will flow into the (6.16 pm)—I think it was Gerard Henderson ALP’s coffers will decline. So there is very who first identified the industrial relations much a self-interest in all the arguments that club as a club where insiders practised an come from the opposition to defend the arcane science that was quite unfamiliar to status quo. the rest of the people, particularly those who But I think it is relevant to look at the his- were subject to their deliberations. For two tory of the opposition since we came into decades now we have been looking forward office. Let us look first at a quote from the to the day when industrial relations could Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, in become comprehensible to ordinary folk. 1996, very early in the term of this govern- What the Workplace Relations Amendment ment. He predicted that the Workplace Rela- (Work Choices) Bill 2005 does is reduce tions Act—that is, the one we have been liv- 2,000 pages of state and federal legislation to ing with for nearly a decade now—would 700 pages—and, of those 700 pages, 200 turn Australia into a ‘low-wage, low produc- pages are transitional provisions. So it is a tivity industrial wasteland’. What has the tremendous reduction in the amount of reality been? We have created 1.7 million black-letter law that is going to be applicable new jobs. Of those 1.7 million new jobs, to how people are able to negotiate situations 900,000 have been full time and 800,000 in the workplace that are suitable for them. have been part time. What was the outcome I listened with interest to some speakers in of a totally regulated system that the Labor the course of the debate—not all, I have to Party had in place during their 13 years in say. What I really hear being argued is a case office? Aside from the fact that we had a for, ‘Please leave it all in place, because it’s boom-bust cycle and an enormous depres- ours; we know how to play the game and we sion in the early 1990s—where, because of don’t want any change.’ It really is a plea to the mismanagement of the economy, firms leave in place the old industrial relations club that would normally have survived a correc- and to leave in place trade unions, which are tion in the marketplace perished under that an enormous source of money for the Labor hideous interest rate regime that was im- Party, which is their political wing—$47 posed by former Prime Minister Keating— million has been paid since 1995-96 from during their period of tenure, over 13 years trade unions to the Labor Party for the pur- as distinct from over nine, they created poses of fighting elections and protecting 707,000 jobs, of which only 188,000 were that base. full-time jobs. If you look at the make-up of the people So you get an outcome that says that, if who form the members of the Labor Party in you have a totally regulated system, you get the opposition, you will see that something a smaller number of jobs created and you get like 50 per cent of them have a trade union a recession—which we had in the middle of background. Similar statistics apply to the it, where the recovery rate for new jobs was people who sit on the front bench. I hear al- far slower than the loss rate of jobs that went most a bleat coming from the opposition. If during that depressed period—versus the we see the passage of this legislation, and its beginning of a freed-up workplace and a bedding down and functioning well, that 17 freed-up economy, which has generated the per cent of people in the private sector who greatest number of people we have ever had choose to belong to trade unions may be- in employment. We now have more than 10 come even less. If that is the case, the million people in employment. We have

CHAMBER 132 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 more women in employment than we have tions reforms have been borne out to be in- ever had before. There are more women par- correct. The peddlers of fear—that damna- ticipating, using the skills that this country tion was nigh—have all been proven to be has enabled women to have. There has been wrong. Now we are seeing a huge step for- a huge investment made in us, in that we ward which will successfully reduce the have been able to acquire good educations complexity, the arcane science, the mystery and we are able to use those skills that we and the volumes of pages of minute condi- have acquired, and in a way we give a divi- tions that have to be followed under the dend to the nation because our skills are be- award structure to something that people can ing used. comprehend and honestly negotiate upon. At the same time, we have seen a nearly Unions will not be abolished; they will 15 per cent growth in wages; whereas under still have a role to play. However, I repeat: Labor we saw a minimal growth in wages. the main problem that will lie for the Labor Indeed, we saw Labor Party people say that Party is that, if people see that they do not they were proud of the fact that they had need to continue to belong to a union, the suppressed wages, which allowed greater revenue that flows to the Labor Party may profits to be made. Let us see what some of well drop. I can see that that is a real concern the activists who are still playing in the game for the Labor Party, particularly as they have had to say as well. Just prior to the 1996 now sold Centenary House which, in the last election, in October 1995, Stephen Smith, years of that lease, would have produced $8 the member for Perth said: million a year for them. Nonetheless, they The Howard model is quite simple. It is all about realised the capital gain. It cost $17 million lower wages; it is about worse conditions; it is to build and it realised $35 million on sale about a massive rise in industrial disputation; it is because of the value of the lease attached to about the abolition of safety nets; and it is about it. pushing down or abolishing minimum standards. Just on Centenary House, I have asked the As a worker, you may have lots of doubts about the things that you might lose, but you can be Audit Office to look at it to ensure, should absolutely sure of one thing: John Howard will the Auditor-General continue as a tenant af- reduce your living standards. ter the cessation of the lease, that holding Let us take them one by one. Wages have over provisions would not be on the same risen; they have not gone down. Conditions terms and conditions as the lease. That is have not worsened. ‘A massive rise in indus- very important, because the amount of trial disputation’ did not happen; it lessened. money that is spent by the Audit Office on ‘It is about the abolition of safety nets’: rent is practically greater than the money it safety nets are still in place. ‘It is about push- spends on doing its job. ing down or abolishing minimum standards’: Back to this bill. I concede that the bill it was not; they have not been abolished. ‘As may well have a real effect on the cash flow a worker you have lots of doubts about the into Labor Party coffers, but it will also have things that you might lose, but you can be a very good outcome on the cash flow into absolutely sure of one thing: John Howard workers’ pockets. Workers’ pockets are the will reduce your living standards’: he has ones that this government cares about. By not; they have risen. having a freed up labour market, more and All the dire predictions that were made more people will have jobs and be part of the about the first tranche of our industrial rela- pride of working. There will be fewer fami-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 133 lies where there is no job—no breadwinner; skerrick of substantive evidence being put to merely welfare. Those are the aims. No bet- this House, it reconfigures the system to sig- ter gift of independence can be given to an nificantly reduce the rights of working Aus- individual Australian than the right to work tralians to receive a fair day’s pay and condi- and to support themselves and their family. tions for a fair day’s work. This workplace reform is about seeing a new The arguments used by the minister to jus- horizon—about seeing new hopes and aspi- tify the government’s actions have been spu- rations. It is about getting rid of the arcane rious. The minister typically distorts history science and the IR club for the insiders and to make any point—for example, his com- seeing opportunities open up for people who mon claim that the industrial relations prin- have been denied the opportunity to partici- ciples are based on the old economy and pate. It is a pretty good aim. ‘static institutions’. These comments belie When the opposition tried to hold up the the adaptations and adjustments the system introduction of the bill, I think John Howard has accommodated for decades up to the pre- said he had been waiting 20 years so he sent time. He claimed that the industrial rela- could wait another 15 minutes. The fact of tions system has overlooked the creation of the matter is the country has been waiting for jobs. Apart from failing to note that the sys- decades, and it will finally get to see a freed tem specifically allows for and expects em- up system where individuals will prosper. ployment conditions to be factored and con- Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith) (6.26 sidered in determinations, this comment pm)—I rise to speak on the Workplace Rela- again belies our experience of the industrial tions Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 relations system co-existing with lower rates and add my voice to colleagues on this side of unemployment. of the House, including the member for No-one is immune from this minister’s Denison. I strongly support and endorse the criticisms. He has also admonished manag- remarks he just made to the House. The de- ers. He said that, until the early 1990s, they velopment of Australia’s industrial relations had shown little willingness to innovate. This system over the period of our life as a nation would come as a surprise to the many public is the mark of our particular genius for ac- and private sector managers who have made commodating competing rights and interests. innovation a byword for their actions in the This system operated in a way which ensured workplace over an extended period of time. fairness for workers and the capacity for It is managers, after all, who play a major businesses to engage fruitfully in the eco- role in driving economic performance. Im- nomic system. It did so in a way which en- portantly, when last surveyed, managers did sured fairness and conformity with law and not rate the current award system as the most working practices. If it needed to be im- significant impediment they face to making proved or to adapt to changing circum- innovative changes. They put financial con- stances, it was possible for constructive straints and government policy at the top of change to occur, as was palpably displayed their list and not the industrial relations sys- in the Hawke-Keating era. However, the leg- tem that this government is dismembering. islation that the government is introducing I spoke in the House on 6 September in into this parliament casts aside this legacy. It the debate on the now superseded Workplace proposes a destructive approach to industrial Relations Amendment (Better Bargaining) relations. It throws the lot out. It seeks to Bill 2005 about the impact of the govern- bypass the Constitution and, despite not a

CHAMBER 134 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 ment’s proposals to change the Australian With the introduction of the Workplace industrial relations system. Without repeat- Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill ing those words now, I draw the House’s 2005 the government now reveals the details attention to them. At that time I raised con- of the ideological master plan. My concerns cerns about the impact that the proposals about that plan as expressed before remain would have, especially on the low paid. I unchanged. With the guillotine to be applied also raised my concern that no case had been to this debate, the government holds the par- mounted that the current industrial relations liament in contempt and the laws are forced landscape holds back the Australian econ- through. The bill, with its 687 pages of de- omy in any way, shape or form. I think this tailed amendments, along with the explana- was graphically shown on the Four Corners tory memorandum of 565 pages, amounts to program of 29 August this year. Questioning 1,200-odd pages. It is clearly both exhaustive Heather Ridout of Australian Industry and, given the time frame for passage to this Group, the reporter asked: House, exhausting. The bill presents us with Can you cite any economic evidence that individ- a package that is mind numbing in its com- ual contracts actually boost productivity? plexity. The magnitude of the changes have HEATHER RIDOUT, AUSTRALIAN been heralded by the government since the INDUSTRY GROUP: No, and I... Prime Minister’s May statement. The Octo- SALLY NEIGHBOUR, REPORTER: No? Is ber Work Choices information package and there none? the ridiculously and obscenely expensive HEATHER RIDOUT, AUSTRALIAN advertising campaign that accompanied it all, INDUSTRY GROUP: Well, I, I’m not aware of stand as testament to the significance of the direct research to that effect. changes. The government spent over $50 Professor Mark Wooden of the Melbourne million of taxpayers’ money in what was Institute of Applied Economic Research was really a blanket blitz of propaganda. It has asked the same question. He replied: pulped brochures that do not conform to the government’s thoughtspeak, and the Prime I’m not sure there’s any. Minister ducks for cover at question time— Professor David Peetz from the School of today again refusing to engage in debate. All Business at Griffith University said this: this is emblematic of the government’s ap- There’s no evidence for it at all. Over the long run proach. productivity is determined by the rate of technical Given the level of detail combined with progress. the stated importance of the changes, a dis- There you have it—it is not by focusing on passionate observer would simply ask: ‘Why ‘transaction costs’, as some members oppo- hasn’t there been more time for debate?’ But site have claimed. It is a risible claim that it is a repeated pattern with the Howard gov- reasonable working conditions and the ca- ernment that the opportunity for parliament pacity to bargain for them are merely trans- to comprehensively examine and debate is- action costs in some kind of person-less cal- sues of this magnitude, particularly when culation. It is technological progress that much of what is contained in the legislation determines productivity and, tied to that pro- would open the government to criticism, is gress, substantial reskilling of Australia’s simply curtailed. workers. That should be the emphasis of the The fact is that any so-called reforms, to government, as we have argued in this House be worthy of consideration, should promote repeatedly. But they just do not get it. both fairness and efficiency. But in this case

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 135 fairness has been left out altogether and the The government claims that there has efficiency gains the government speaks of been consultation about these changes. It is a are, in effect, a one-way, low-wage street, fanciful claim. The Prime Minister’s May leading to the Americanisation of our indus- statement was some 12 pages long. The trial relations system. Having worked over a WorkChoices booklet released on 9 October, number of years in the United States, I well only four weeks ago, was 67 pages. Neither know that when the US economy is robust, of those documents went close to touching working conditions and remuneration condi- upon the intricacy of this 1,252-page pack- tions barely cover expenses. When it slows age. For members opposite to claim that this down, people are stranded. They are caught is in some way a simplification of the indus- between the necessity to work and a system trial relations system borders on the farcical. that permits their labour to be traded down The changes that will be wrought by this when the economy goes soft. Many end up bill are sweeping and they have the potential as working poor, and you see them on the to be catastrophic. The impacts will be felt streets, under the bridges and in the poor through the term of this parliament and be- neighbourhoods of the towns and cities of yond and they will be felt in the lounge America. rooms of the people of Kingsford Smith. Many colleagues and commentators have Last week the ACTU predicted that many noted in respect of this legislation that the Australian families who rely on regular over- devil is very much in the detail and that time will suffer reductions in take-home pay working Australians need more time to learn in the order of $265 per month. That is a about these changes. I would assert in the dark cloud for these people indeed. It also House that members on both sides and in appears on analysis available so far that the both houses need more time to consult their protections promised in the Work Choices constituents and to form views and express media campaign are not what they seem. We concerns to the government. Working people were subject to a media blitz the like of should not be told that they should just trust which the country has not seen—a media the Prime Minister. That approach is too blitz that I have to say does not seem to have condescending by half. Working Australians been particularly successful. deserve much better than that. Ms George—It backfired on them, didn’t I can assure the House that of all the is- it? sues that are of significance in the seat of Mr GARRETT—It has backfired on Kingsford Smith, these industrial relations them, as the member for Throsby comments laws and what is contained in them is the most assiduously. Many people who are lis- most significant issue. It is the issue we re- tening, reading and in this House will recall ceive the most mail about in our office, it is that there were matters which would be pro- the issue that we receive the most telephone tected by law, and they will recall that pen- calls and emails about, and it is the issue alty rates was one of those matters. Your when we go out into the community, into the penalty rates ‘protected by law’ went the ad- shopping centres and onto the street corners, vertisement. Your penalty rates ‘protected by that we find that the majority of Australians law’ as proposed in the government’s adver- have concerns about. I say to them that we tisement is simply not true. Some people will are listening to the them and that their con- have their penalty rates protected in some cerns and problems with this legislation are entirely justified.

CHAMBER 136 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 circumstances, but this package will not pro- 40,000 people who will suffer a loss of tect all penalty rates all the time. award protections for penalty rates arising In my electorate of Kingsford Smith there from this legislation. They will all be ex- are many registered clubs. The employees of posed under this legislation. But it is not just those clubs are paid under the Club Employ- members of the House who are finding this ees (State) Award. That award, at clause 15, bill daunting; the language of the bill is affords bar staff, on Saturday, a penalty rate largely impenetrable to all. Members will of time and one-half. Under this law, the have observed the minister being interviewed Club Employees (State) Award will no by Tony Jones on ABC’s Lateline program longer be an award. As the member for Deni- on Thursday last week. It is worth repeating son and others have remarked, it will become an extract from that interview. Mr Jones is a transitional agreement. It will have a life of talking about a child-care worker, Mary, try- three years and, at the end of three years, it ing to make sense of this legislation. will disappear. The employees will then be TONY JONES: Alright. Let’s take a child care moved onto the appropriate federal award. worker as a hypothetical case, call her Mary. Presumably, the appropriate federal award Mary’s employer wants her to go onto an AWA. will be the Hospitality Industry— Now the first thing Mary has to work out is whether the offer is as good as her pre-reform Accommodation, Hotels, Resorts and Gam- wage instrument. That’s right, isn’t it? ing Award. I advise the House that that award, at clause 19—surprise, surprise!— KEVIN ANDREWS: Mary will know what she’s getting by the way of her take-home pay at the provides only time and one-quarter for Sat- present time. So if she’s offered an AWA, she can urday work. A clear reduction in penalty compare that and she can get some advice. rates for bar staff in New South Wales clubs, TONY JONES: It isn’t her take-home pay, on current rates a reduction of about $3.10 though, is it? It’s her basic periodic rate of pay per hour, is under way and a similar thing that’s involved here. She can’t be offered less will happen to Sunday rates. than her basic periodic rate of pay. That figure Not only is this contrary to the govern- excludes overtime and allowances, doesn’t it? ment’s publicly stated position—club em- KEVIN ANDREWS: What she has to have in any ployees’ penalty rates will not be protected agreement in the future is the fact that she gets the by law—but, more importantly, it exposes wage made at an hourly rate, but according to the club employees who rely on penalty rates of award classification which is relevant to her in- $200 per month to the loss that they will industry and her job—a 38-hour ordinary week, four weeks annual leave, sick leave, carer’s leave evitably and ultimately suffer. For people and personal leave. whose living expenses are high, who have families, who need child care, who are pay- TONY JONES: It does exclude overtime and allowances—the figure that she can’t receive less ing off a mortgage, who are meeting rising than in her AWA—that’s right isn’t it? fuel bills, the prospect of being $200 a month worse off is indeed a catastrophe. It is not an KEVIN ANDREWS: Her overtime and allowances are matters which can be negotiated be- overstatement or an overuse of that expres- tween her and an employer— sion. For these people, these laws are a very dark cloud. there is the rub— If they don’t negotiate it specifically then the There are in the order of 40,000 employ- relevant award provision applies. ees who are covered by the Club Employees (State) Award in New South Wales. It is these TONY JONES: She has to work out her preserved Australian paid classification scale. Once she

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 137 does that she has to work out whether that is, in removing unfair dismissal rights it eliminates fact, related to her pre-reform wages. These are all sense of security in the workplace. incredibly complicated concepts for people like Mary, a child care worker? By introducing this legislation into this place in this manner, a bill which I have de- KEVIN ANDREWS: We can simplify all that. scribed as a mess has been foisted upon the Can I cut through all that, Tony. We simplify all that. The Australian Fair Pay Commission will Australian people. The government has at- establish for all relevant awards and classifica- tempted to persuade us of its merits by tions, will have an hourly rate. It will publish this. spending hard-earned taxpayers’ money. It It will have these details available quite readily to now wants to seek to gag the debate—to Australians. In fact, what you’re describing is the guillotine debate in the House. The word great difficulty of the system at the present time. ‘arrogance’ does come to mind. It is used What we’re going to do is to be able to have a often, but in respect of the way in which this system— legislation has been introduced and managed TONY JONES: What I’m describing is what’s in by the government I think the word is en- your legislation, actually, what’s in the legislation tirely justified. we’re looking at. The government’s package is an affront to That extract from Lateline sums it up. It many Australians, because no case has been makes it all clear. It is not a John Clarke made for these massive changes. The extent script. This bill involves a level of complex- of the detail in the document is oppressive. ity that renders it incomprehensible to ordi- The long-term effect on Australian workers nary Australians—workers and employees faced with having to make their own claims alike. The system does not become simpler; in order to be able to exercise their rights in it becomes more complex. The pages and the workplace—rights which have been sig- pages of the bill are a testament to that fact. nificantly reduced—will be that in some in- This bill is a mess. It brings changes that stances, particularly into the medium and are fundamental to our way of life, and it longer term, they will face some catastrophe. removes fairness from the workplace. The Whether it concerns the residual powers bill is a mess, and it is also in contempt of a given to the minister to make determinations system that has served Australians well. It in relation to prohibited content—namely, emasculates every industrial tribunal in this those things that are not permitted to be part country, and it takes away recourse to an of an employment agreement—whether it independent umpire. This bill is a mess, be- concerns court fines and jail for those who cause it destroys the award system and it seek to add conditions, whether it refers to removes crucial protections for working Aus- the situation that obtains for Mary, whether it tralians. As has been pointed out in the concerns the impact on families who need House by the shadow minister, the member certainty about their working arrangements for Perth, it removes the no-disadvantage but who will now face working hours that test, which has served to underpin the award can be averaged over a 12-month period or system that has done Australians fair over the whether it concerns workers in low-paid jobs last 100 years. The bill is a mess because it who do not have the resources to resolve restricts the activity of registered organisa- their own disputes in cases of unfair treat- tions, and it destroys the fundamental rights ment, the likelihood with this bill is that, in of workers to organise and operate effec- areas where efficiency gains are all but fully tively a trade union. It denies a fundamental realised, the only prospect for Australian right that they have had in the Federation. By

CHAMBER 138 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 workers is that they will be asked to do more The ACTU secretary, Sharan Burrow, told for less. There is no other conclusion that can her union minions on national television that, be drawn from this legislation. The haste for her hysterical advertising campaign, she with which the government acts means that required: the substance of these changes will pass ... a mum or dad of someone who’s been seriously without the opportunity for people to fully injured or killed. That would be fantastic. understand and comprehend them. This bill What a repulsive, disgusting thing to say. should be rejected by the House. (Time ex- Here we have the president of the ACTU, a pired) position held in the past by a few members Ms PANOPOULOS (Indi) (6.47 pm)— on the other side, wanting to wreak human The Workplace Relations Amendment (Work misery on vulnerable people in our commu- Choices) Bill 2005 is one of the most impor- nity. tant pieces of legislation that this parliament But not to be outdone, the unremarkable will debate. It represents a significant shift Victorian upper house member for Chelsea— that will bring workplaces into the 21st cen- whose previous claim to fame was that he tury. But few bills have been misrepresented missed a division in the Victorian upper in the manner that this bill has. Few bills house, where the government controls the have been subject to the complete misrepre- numbers, meaning that the Labor govern- sentation that this bill has—in particular, ment could not pass its bill—stated that the from self-interested bodies like the ACTU, Prime Minister wanted to take us down a which is diminishing in relevance from year path where: to year. With the successful passage of this ... people on picket lines were murdered. Women legislation, Australia will move from the and children were killed, and that is the road this complex labyrinth of an arthritic and rigid Prime Minister wants to take us down. It is a dis- workplace relations system that was more grace. suited to the time of the horse and buggy at No, Mr Smith, you are a disgrace—but a Federation. We have moved on now, and perfect illustration of the quality of members there is no reason for there to be 4,000 of the Victorian Bracks Labor government. awards in place and more than 130 pieces of separate industrial relations legislation. As the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions, these changes are ‘big but The hysterical reaction from some mem- fair’. They are necessary to ensure Austra- bers opposite has been a disgrace. Some lia’s productivity remains high and competi- have misled the House: the member for Ca- tive, to ensure the highest possible living pricornia did this recently with her incorrect standards for Australian workers. They are rantings on AWAs—and the member for necessary to ensure Australia keeps pace Bendigo claimed that pensioners would be with the rest of the world. If we fall back and worse off because the minimum wage would ignore reform of our industrial relations sys- drop. What absolute rot. Let me remind the tem, we risk being relegated to the back- member for Bendigo and others on the oppo- blocks of the international economy, floun- site side that it is the Howard government dering at the bottom of the ladder like the that has ensured that the pension will never Hawthorn and Carlton football clubs of the dip to below 25 per cent of male total aver- 2005 AFL season, when we should be up age weekly earnings and that the pension is there with Sydney and West Coast. indexed twice a year, in line with inflation.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 139

It is worth remembering that some of The opposition supports in principle the concept these reforms have been seminal coalition of a single national system of industrial relations, policy for a decade. For instance, the How- and it always has. It can deliver benefits to both ard government has been saying—up hill and employees and employers by creating a uniform down dale, since 1996—that it wants to rid national framework for dispute resolution and the application of minimum employment standards this country of Labor’s ‘unfair’ unfair dis- that can be more easily complied with and en- missal laws, which act as a startling impedi- forced. ment to jobs growth in this country, particu- That was not the Minister for Employment larly in the area of small business employ- and Workplace Relations or the Prime Minis- ment. Labor is pretending that Keating’s un- ter. It was Steve Bracks in 1996. And here is fair dismissal laws are some sort of unassail- another one: able, unalienable constitutional right of the worker. They have only been in existence In a nation of 17 million people struggling to since 1993, and the regrettable experiment modernise its economy, seven separate systems of industrial regulation is an absurd luxury. that these laws have been needs to end—and it will end with the passage of this legisla- Who said that? It was none other than the tion. former New South Wales Premier, Bob Carr. Both the New South Wales and Victorian For years, small businesses in my elector- governments have now taken out expensive ate have been pleading for changes to the advertising campaigns of their own to com- unfair dismissal laws. Some of them just do plement the misleading ACTU campaign. not employ additional labour, but work Talk about hypocrisy! When he was state longer hours with members of their family. secretary of the Western Australian branch of Others have been unfairly financially bur- the Labor Party, the member for Perth, one dened by having to pay ‘go away’ money— of the fierce opponents of the government’s which is a polite term for that sort of pay- advertising campaign, supported the idea of a ment—to vexatious former employees. government being able to explain its policies. Some Labor members do know the folly He said: ‘I see nothing wrong with a gov- of these laws. The member for Hunter comes ernment explaining its policies to the public to mind as someone who understands the through government documents with a fore- debilitating effect that the current unfair dis- word by the Premier.’ missal regime places on small business. The We cannot talk about these industrial rela- member for Watson has acknowledged their tions changes without mentioning the union deleterious impact. If only more members on movement in Australia. The shift to enter- the other side would have the courage to prise bargaining is something the unions speak up and take the concerns of small have always feared. It is opposed by the un- business more seriously. But then again, they ion movement and, yes, these changes do do have a leader who is on record as saying impact on the unions. But, like the churches, that the Labor Party never pretended to rep- political parties and other forms of organised resent small business. associations, the unions have to come to If we look back a bit further, we see that terms with remaining relevant in an age of the notion of a national industrial relations dwindling adherence to dogmatic capital. In framework garnered wide support from a 1976, 51 per cent of the work force were rather disparate coalition of people. Take this union members. That figure is now about 22 quote: per cent—and in the private sector it is only

CHAMBER 140 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

17 per cent. People are voting with their feet. Ms PANOPOULOS—I withdraw the The shift towards enterprise bargaining and word ‘lies’. The member for Fremantle the fall away from the rigidity of reliance on talked about women being the poorest awards has seen a subsequent increase in amongst our committee. She certainly has wages and productivity. not had to suffer, particularly when the last As a female member of parliament, I was bill passed under the last Labor government one of those who received an email this was to pay for her legal affairs in the disas- week from Eva Cox, imploring me and other trous Penny Easton affair. I am sure she has coalition women to vote against the IR bills been very well looked after by the Labor and support women’s equality. This is the Party and the labour movement, so it is quite same Eva Cox who recently said: sad that she has now turned on them in all other policy areas. We certainly have more [Australian] women in positions of power than we had, we have more Ms George—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise women earning higher incomes and they are bet- on a point of order. The remarks being made ter educated. about the member for Fremantle are couched The member for Fremantle took up the fe- in very unparliamentary language and are not male rights cause in 1996 when speaking in acceptable. this place on the Workplace Relations and The DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1996. She point of order. said: Ms PANOPOULOS—The facts are that, Whichever way you look at the government’s since 1996, the number of women in the proposals, they are certain to be very bad news work force has increased by some 16 per indeed for women … cent, unemployment has fallen considerably She also said: over the same period and, whilst you will Individual contracts and deregulation in and of never hear the ALP or the unions say it, themselves have already been shown to be inimi- women are increasingly better off when em- cal to the interests of women. Women are already ployed under AWAs—so much so that amongst the poorest in this community and this women on AWAs earn 32 per cent more than will exacerbate it. women on union sanctioned collective More lies from the Labor Party’s hypocritical agreements. Therefore, the main reason be- feminist sisterhood. hind the ALP and the union movement’s Ms George—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise staunch opposition to AWAs springs not from on a point of order. The member for Indi has a benevolent desire to assist the worker but used very offensive and unparliamentary rather from the fact that unions are not in- language, and I ask that she withdraw those volved in the application of AWAs. They are comments. on the other side, on the back foot, dreaming The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR of the prospect of a Beazley Labor govern- Causley)—The member for Indi should ment with the ACTU having a few seats at withdraw the word ‘lies’. It was addressed to the cabinet table and pulling all the strings in a group of people, and I have ruled before the Labor Party’s closed shop. The fact is that a group of members cannot be accused that unions are going to have to work a bit of lying. The member will withdraw the harder if they are going to survive and con- word ‘lies’. vince employees that it is worthwhile signing up to receive their assistance. Some unions

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 141 do provide that assistance, but they are defi- which will ultimately result in the destruc- nitely in the minority. tion of families and businesses. I do not say These reforms are significant and they are that just as a Labor member of parliament, or necessary. We are making the choices now to on behalf of the federal opposition. I will cite ensure that, in the future, the Australian a number of more ‘independent’—if you economy is well suited to compete interna- want to use that term—people who have tionally and that it will have the flexibility in some level of concern about the legislation the workplace that our current Australian which has been brought forward and which living conditions and families demand. The we are debating tonight. government does not shy away from giving I would like to read you a letter written to greater flexibility to workers and employers. the Age by a business consultant. It is about We have stronger faith than the Labor Party the government’s proposed legislation and has in the ability of Australian workers and also the market signals that it sends to em- their bosses to determine what is right for ployers in this country. The letter says: them and in their best interests. I support this I operate a part-time business consultancy spe- legislation and commend it to the House. cialising in the small and medium enterprise sec- Mr BYRNE (Holt) (6.58 pm)—I am tor. I would like to share the views of one com- pleased to rise tonight to speak on the Work- pany that approached me to consult to it, on the place Relations Amendment (Work Choices) proposed changes to IR. Bill 2005. I want to make one comment on This company stands out as an example of the the contribution made by the member for way in which workers can be abused by the proposed changes. It imports electronic equipment Indi. The only thing we agree upon is that we and parts from Asia and assembles or rebadges barrack for Collingwood. Without going into and packs the products for sale through major specifics, I completely disagree with the rest retailers. It employs 79 permanent staff, of whom of it, particularly with regard to that speech. 67 work in the plant on an average weekly wage In that contribution, there was some discus- of just over $700 and they are non-unionised. sion about AWAs, about the animus behind The company is highly profitable—in excess of and the motivating factors for debating this $1.5 million last financial year—and is owned by incredibly large document—the extensive a brother and sister in their early to mid-30s. Both provisions in this bill. There has been some have MBAs and a background in merchant bank- discussion about whether this is a debate ing, and inherited the company on the death of about ideology. I recall that the member for their father two years ago. Wentworth spoke about the Labor Party Despite its profitability— sticking to an outmoded ideology—an ideol- it is profitable— ogy that has had its time. the company is relatively dysfunctional, with low Interestingly, reflecting on that particular staff morale stemming from a constant compari- point and what motivated the presentation of son of the siblings’ management style ... this bill—what the reasons were for this bill I will not go any further with respect to that being brought forward by the government—I part of the letter. The letter goes on: have come to believe that its genesis was The owners have signalled that when the new IR driven purely by the Prime Minister. The legislation is passed they will sack all of their 67 Prime Minister is seeking to implement an process workers. The sister stated:‘This will teach agenda that he has had from the time he the bastards that do not show us the respect that came into parliament, but it is an agenda we deserve a lesson.’

CHAMBER 142 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

She was talking about the 67 full-time proc- ideology over common sense will see the Coali- ess workers who have delivered this com- tion decimated at the next election ... pany an annual profit of $1.5 million in the That is not the Labor Party opposition saying last financial year. what these changes will mean; that is a busi- The company then intends to replace the present ness consultant, who is consulting with com- workforce with the same number of casual em- panies in my area, forecasting what will hap- ployees on AWAs and pay the absolute minimum pen when these legislative amendments are wage that they can get away with, plus the basic passed. statutory employment conditions. The higher pay scales, permanency, penalty rates, shift loadings I was watching the Prime Minister on the and other benefits now enjoyed by this company’s 7.30 Report the night before last and I was workforce will be converted into profit (not pro- listening to his contribution in the House ductivity improvements) for the owners. today. He reflected that the legislation was in You will recall that in this House there has response to changing times. In fact, a number been much discussion about increased proof contributors in this House from the gov- ductivity as a consequence of these legisla- ernment side of the chamber have spoken tive amendments. about an outmoded industrial relations system. They say that this legislation has basi- With a degree of glee I was told that this increase in net profit—again, not productivity—will be cally been crafted in response to this, and more than $700,000 a year, or $350,000 to each that we need to enhance our productivity to of the owners. I asked where were the replace- enhance our employment. ment employees to come from. The answer was But, interestingly, to find the genesis of the company would list the positions with a gov- the basis of the government’s industrial rela- ernment Job Network Provider so that they could tions changes you need to look into the past. get employees (free of any recruiting charge to In fact, you need to look at this speech. It is the company) who would then be compelled to take the positions at the minimum wage level headed: ‘Transcript of a speech given by the offered under the threat of the removal of their Hon. John Howard, MP, Shadow Minister for welfare payments by Centrelink. Industrial Relations, Employment and Train- In addition, the brother, correctly, pointed out that ing, on the occasion of the launch of the coa- in the area near the plant there is a large number lition’s industrial relations policy, at the of households containing single mothers who will Sheraton Wentworth Hotel, Sydney, on be compelled to work under the changes to the Tuesday, 20 October 1992.’ That is 13 years single parent mutual obligation rules. Thus, to use before the legislation was tabled in this his reasoning, the Government’s welfare reforms place. will deliver his company low cost labour through If I may, I will draw attention to some of compulsion. the Prime Minister’s words with respect to I made the observation that productivity would the industrial relations policy that was fall with the removal of experienced operators, launched, I presume, as part of Fightback, only to be told that the siblings had factored this in and considered that the productivity loss would which was rejected by the Australian people be irrelevant because they would clear the in 1993. He said: $700,000 additional net profit from their new Mr Chairman, I would now like to turn to a num- workforce. ber of specific issues that may well arise under I suggest that the thinking of these employers is this industrial relations policy. more widespread than the Howard Government This was the policy of 1992. has publicly admitted, and this imposition of pure

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 143

The first and most important of these, which I increase and enhance workplace productivity foreshadowed earlier, is the question of minimum when, in the words of the now Prime Minis- conditions. Obviously if people remain within the ter on 20 October 1992, he forecast exactly award stream then those people will continue to what is going to happen to this place, to this enjoy the conditions but if, on the other hand, country, if these legislative provisions are people enter into a workplace agreement, then there will be certain minimum conditions that introduced. If I may just continue further in must be observed in relation to that workplace the Prime Minister’s words, the second agreement. That means every workplace agree- minimum condition— ment that is written will need to respect these Ms George interjecting— minimum conditions. The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR The first of those will be a minimum hourly rate Causley)—The member for Throsby should of pay, calculated by reference to what otherwise restrain herself. would have been the award minimum if the person in question had remained within the award. Mr BYRNE—It is a very worrying de- And it is very important that I emphasise that it velopment, Mr Deputy Speaker, going back will be an hourly rate of pay. That carries with it to the Prime Minister’s words in the past. an enormous change under this policy. What it Many people in this House have been reflect- means is that the policy is effectively abolishing ing on what has been said by past opposition the concept of a fixed working week. What it leaders. I think we also need to look at what means is that the length of the working week, and has been said by the past opposition leader whether somebody is paid penalty rates, or holiday loadings, that all of those things will become, who is now Prime Minister. He said: if people go into workplace agreements, will be- The second minimum condition that will have to come matters of negotiation. be observed is four weeks’ annual leave. This is 20 October 1992. He continued: Have you heard that before? I’ve frequently said— The third minimum condition will be two weeks’ and this gives a pointer to why we are really non-cumulative sick leave. debating this legislation— And the fourth, will be twelve months’ unpaid maternity leave subject to twelve months’ prior as I’ve gone around Australia, as has John— service in the relevant work or occupation. that is, John Hewson— Ms George—Sounds familiar. talking about this policy that if we really want to Mr BYRNE—Does that not sound famil- modernise the Australian economy, if we really want to internationalise the work practices of iar, Member for Throsby? Australia, if we really want to make the Austra- Ms George—Very familiar. lian workplace competitive with the rest of the The DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member world we have to embrace a very important prin- for Throsby is warned. ciple, and that is if somebody makes a capital investment in this country— Mr BYRNE—Because it sounds awfully that is, a business, small or large— familiar to me. Now it is interesting that, in 1992—when the opposition did have the they ought to be able to run that capital invest- guts, I guess you would say, to put forward ment 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year without penalty as to the time of the day or their principles in a policy document which night they run that investment. was rejected by the Australian people in 1993—the document said: So do not come into this place saying that this is something that has just been crafted to Not even the most supreme sceptics about the principles of mandates in politics could conceiva-

CHAMBER 144 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 bly argue after the next election that we wouldn’t ment put in front of them in the 2004 elec- have a mandate for industrial relations reform. tion? Do you think they would have voted Some of us have talked of nothing else for the for that, knowing that they would have had past eight or 10 years, and one of the reasons that to work under that system? The words of the the coalition has been so resolute in putting for- Prime Minister reflect back to the real inten- ward clearly and succinctly the policies on which we stand, why John Hewson has stood so firmly tion of this legislation. Let me reiterate it. and so rock solid in favour of the policies that we Ms George—It’s a great quote. have enunciated, is our fundamental belief that if Mr BYRNE—It is a great quote from the you are open and candid with the people before Prime Minister. you win the election then you have the moral authority to do what you said you were going to The DEPUTY SPEAKER—If the mem- do after the election. ber for Throsby wishes to stay in the parlia- Where was this document prior to the last ment, she will abide by the rulings of the election? Do you think that the Australian chair. people, after having rejected a document like Mr BYRNE—Let us look at the animus, this in 1993, would have voted for this? So the driving force of this legislation. Working the Prime Minister has been hanged by his families and particularly Family First, who own words on 20 October 1992. But he has had asked for a family impact statement, will in fact done us the favour of speaking about now understand why they have not been this issue again. That was in a debate on a given one. I do not know if anyone in this matter of public importance on 29 April place who is sitting here at the present time 1992. He was talking about the then Prime has seen the proposed and promised family Minister Paul Keating, and he said: impact statement that was supposed to have The Prime Minister falsely alleged— been given to Family First to validate and to this was when we were debating the Fight- verify this legislation. My understanding is back package— that they have not been given it, but perhaps, when Senator Fielding looks at this tran- that workers will have their conditions driven script, he might understand why he has not down. They will not. There will be a minimum been given it. Let me reiterate it: wage calculated on an hourly rate. There will be minimum requirements regarding such things as ... if somebody makes a capital investment— annual leave and sick leave. But let me make it which is a business— abundantly clear to all members of the Govern- in this country, they ought to be able to run that ment, in case there is any doubt on their side, that capital investment 24 hours a day, seven days a we believe that such matters as penalty rates, the week, 365 days a year without penalty as to the length of the working week, overtime, holiday time of the day or night they run that investment. loadings and all of those things that are holding back the needed flexibility in Australia’s indus- So what does it say when people come into trial relations system ought to be matters for ne- this place from that side of the House, saying gotiation ... that this is not going to impact on families, It was 1992 when the now Prime Minister, in when their leader, who is the spiritual creator this place, said: of this particular legislation, has basically We do not shy away from that. We do not walk forecast what will happen? away from it for a moment. In my view, and in the view of a number What do you think the Australian public of people in this place, basically the job of would have said if they had had that docu- governments is not to eliminate markets. It is

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 145 not a democratic socialist party creed to delivered those productivity increases. Why eliminate markets. But, when Labor deregu- then is the government making a scapegoat lated the financial markets and deregulated out of those people, out of the community the economy in the eighties, as it had to do, it who have delivered the economic productiv- put a fundamental underpinning with respect ity that we now enjoy? to family payments, with respect to the in- As well as the letter that I have quoted dustrial relations system. It realised that to from, there is another document, from the compete in the international economy it had churches. Peter Jensen, when talking about to globalise the economy—not without some this on behalf of the churches, said that he level of pain, I might add—but it did not al- had some level of anxiety about the so-called low the market to operate as an unfettered Work Choices bill that has been brought into force which alone determined the working this place. conditions and lives of Australians. The other thing I have never seen in my Let me give you a quote from a conserva- time in politics—and I thought I had seen it tive marketplace analysis—written, I think, all in my six years in this place, particularly by a professor of philosophy—and let us see after the GST advertising campaign—is the how it applies to the industrial relations leg- amount of advertising that has gone into islation that has been brought forward by this falsely misrepresenting what is actually go- government. It says: ing to occur in the workplace, without legis- ... the market ... does not easily coexist with insti- lation being brought into this place. Many tutions that operate according to principles ... older members on that side of the place antithetical to itself: schools and universities, would never have tolerated that if they had newspapers and magazines, charities, families. greater say—I know that for a fact. I know Sooner or later the market tends to absorb them that there is great unease on the coalition all. It puts an almost irresistible pressure on every activity ... to become a business proposition, to side about what this government is doing. pay its own way, to show black ink on the bottom The great thing about a Senate which is line. It turns news into entertainment, scholarship not controlled by the government of the day into professional careerism, social work into the is that it operates as a check and as a balance. scientific management of poverty. The Australian people gave this government In essence, this says that it is antithetical to control of the Senate in 2004 but we must families if you allow market forces solely to remember that they expected the government drive policy. But does not this legislation do to operate with control—in essence, to use that? Is it not the end of the train line for the its untrammelled power conservatively, not Howard government? Is it not giving, to punish them. Yet one of the first major through its use of the corporations power, the things that has occurred is so-called reform capacity to the market to drive everything? that will profoundly change their working Working conditions are to be set by the mar- lives and make their lives less secure. ket, by business, and where are the protec- It does not matter how much advertising tions for the workers who have delivered you do. It does not matter how many glossy productivity gains to this country? It is not brochures you pulp or put out. The fact of the the government that has delivered productiv- matter is that this is the last will and testa- ity increases; it is the Australian community. ment of the Howard government and John It is the Australian workers, within the cur- Howard. But John Howard has to remember rent industrial relations system, who have the following. He said he was going to stab

CHAMBER 146 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 the Industrial Relations Commission in the doing so, I have also considered the follow- stomach and, in effect, destroy the industrial ing three points: firstly, the opinions that relations system. People will remember that have been expressed by various constituents, he stabbed the Industrial Relations Commis- community organisations and small busi- sion, and he should be very careful, given his nesses in the electorate; secondly, the current abuse of untrammelled power in the Senate, workplace relations system and the position that the Australian public does not cut his this country and its workers and employers throat at the next election. (Time expired) would find themselves in if this system were Mr VASTA (Bonner) (7.18 pm)—I rise to to be maintained for the next 10 years; and, speak tonight about the position that I main- thirdly, my own experiences as both an em- tain regarding this government’s industrial ployee and a former small business owner, relations reform. Bonner is Queensland’s employing at one time over 60 staff. It has most marginal seat and, as a result, the elec- been through these considerations that I have torate has been targeted in the debate over come to the conclusion that the industrial this issue by both the Queensland unions and relations reforms are in the national interest the media. I understand the sensitivity of this and will ultimately benefit Australian work- issue. However, let me be clear in saying that ers, employees and small business. I make no hesitation in confirming my strong Consequently, I will be voting for this bill support for the proposed workplace reforms. in full confidence. Given the current climate Furthermore, I make clear my intention to of objection to proposed changes, this is a vote for the Workplace Relations Amend- tough decision but one that I will not back ment (Work Choices) Bill 2005, which has down on. I will be judged on account of the been set before the House, and I will remain stand that I have taken. However, I have ab- firm on this decision. solutely no doubt that history will ultimately Since the introduction of the proposed re- show that it took a strong government under forms, my electorate office has been the tar- the leadership of a strong Prime Minister to get of several union protests. Threats have deliver the benefits of a reformed industrial been made by union officials that they will relations system. Australia cannot stand still. ‘doorknock every house in the electorate’ This government is looking to the future and until the Bonner constituency understands making tough decisions about what changes the union’s view on the matter. Politics, are needed now to secure long-term benefits however, is not about polling the electorate for the country and its people. on each current issue and then trying to vote On Friday, 4 November, an article ap- accordingly. I have been elected as the fed- peared in the Courier-Mail entitled ‘Planned eral representative for Bonner and with this workplace change is music to his ears’. It position comes a duty to consider what is in told the story of Allan Todd, owner of Todds the very best long-term interests of both the HiFi chain in Brisbane, and his plans to fully electorate and Australians throughout this embrace the proposed changes. With a store country. It is about weighing up the factors in the Bonner suburb of Tingalpa, Mr Todd involved in each issue and deciding on what shares the views of other business owners in will deliver the best possible outcomes for the electorate who believe that the reforms the people that I represent. are overdue. Mr Todd is correct in saying I have carefully considered the reforms that the industrial relations changes seem to that the government has proposed and, in have attracted the same unfounded fear that surrounded the introduction of the GST. He

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 147 is a business owner who understands that the nations and one of those moments was the current workplace system is far too ambigu- last federal election—the election that deliv- ous and, therefore, needs to move towards a ered the Howard government control of both simpler single national system. houses of this parliament and released it Not only will small business benefit from from the requirement to justify its extreme these changes but also workers can rest as- and reactionary legislative program. Since sured that they will be better off under the that election, the Howard government has Work Choices system because it will pre- resurrected its most extreme reactionary serve existing protections in the current sys- policies—the ones it fantasised about—and tem while making it easier for workers to be now is seeking arrogantly to force them onto rewarded for their work with higher pay and the Australian people. These are policies it more flexible working arrangements. The did not dare take to the last election and tell previous one-size-fits-all award system the Australian people about—policies like failed Australian workers. It did nothing to the industrial relations legislation that some prevent one million Australians from becom- of us are debating here in the House today ing unemployed in the early-nineties reces- but which the government will prevent all sion. Most employees are likely to find that members from debating. Why didn’t the their existing awards and agreements will government tell the Australian people about remain in place and not be affected. There is this policy? If the Australian people had been no obligation to switch to new agreements told that the government intended to intro- and, for those who do, it will be unlawful for duce this draconian piece of legislation, they any employer to force an employee onto a would not have returned the government at new agreement against their will. the last election. It should not be forgotten that the exact This is an arrogant government. It is a same predictions of doom and gloom were government of ideologues. It is a government made when the Howard government’s first that is a slave to its extreme reactionary phi- workplace relations reforms were imple- losophy and to its bosses in big business. mented in 1996. Back then, Kim Beazley While ignoring the needs of ordinary, aver- predicted lower wages, social division and age working Australians and their families, more industrial disputes. In contrast, real this government arrogantly and very subser- wages have risen by 14.9 per cent since 1996 viently follows the demands and the desires compared with 1.2 per cent between 1983 of its mates in big business. The Workplace and 1996. In addition, unemployment is at a Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 29-year low and industrial disputes have 2005 is just that type of legislation. It is bot- fallen to the lowest levels ever recorded. tom-drawer legislation. By that, I mean this is legislation that you keep in the bottom Ultimately, the key factor in workers be- drawer and hope one day to be able to push ing better off is a healthy economy. The new through parliament. It is legislation that fan- workplace relations system will help to en- tasies are built on. This is the kind of legisla- sure that the economy remains healthy, and it tion that the government used to sit around should be viewed as a blueprint for positive the table discussing, saying, ‘One day we change and progression over the next five or may be able to push this through parliament.’ more years. It is the type of legislation that, on the other Ms HALL (Shortland) (7.24 pm)—There side of the House, dreams are built on. The are defining moments in the history of all sad part about this legislation is that it will

CHAMBER 148 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 change the face of Australia. With this gov- bit upset when I thought that it was going to ernment arrogantly ramming these changes be closed down. through the parliament, there has been a be- This legislation will be very detrimental to trayal of all Australian workers and all Aus- the Australian people. Workers’ jobs are go- tralian families. It is arrogance in the ex- ing to be less secure. Families will suffer as treme. people work longer hours. Workers will be This government has shown its absolute on their own. They will have to sign con- contempt for the Australian people by spend- tracts or they will not get a job. As I have ing $55 million on a propaganda campaign. already mentioned, the Howard government That is a gross misuse of taxpayers’ money. I has spent millions of taxpayers’ dollars on am not opposed to the government undertak- propaganda for this legislation. The choice ing legitimate advertising campaigns, but I will be signing a contract, taking a cut in pay believe that it should give unbiased informa- and conditions or not getting a job. There tion to the Australian people and tell them will be no job security. If you change jobs, what the government is really doing. But that you will be exempt from protection under the is not what this legislation is about. Unfortu- unfair dismissal laws for the first six months. nately, it is legislation that looks after the That is not good enough. government’s mates. Look at some of the Workers in Australia need a strong safety questions that have been put to the govern- net of minimum award wages, a strong inde- ment this week in question time—questions pendent umpire to ensure fair wages and that I think go to the very heart of this adver- conditions, the right to bargain collectively tising campaign. The other day, the govern- for decent wages and conditions, proper ment admitted to having spent $50 million— rights for those workers unfairly dismissed I think it is now up to $55 million—on this and rights to join and be represented by a propaganda campaign. The government pro- union. All these things will go under this duced 458,000 booklets—nearly half a mil- legislation; they are under attack. The final lion—and then pulped them. Those booklets nail in the coffin will be the removal of the were pulped at a cost to the Australian peo- role of the Industrial Relations Commission ple of $152,000. If producing these booklets to determine increases in award wages. were not bad enough—these one-sided book- Let us look at the history of this govern- lets that do not give the full information—the ment when it comes to the minimum wage. If government has made it twice as bad by the Howard government had had its wish all pulping them. Add to that the fact that these Australian workers would be $50 a week booklets were printed by Salmac and that worse off—that is $2,600 a year they would one of the directors of that company has do- not be receiving. In 1997 the Howard gov- nated almost $120,000 to the Howard government recommended an increase of $8 per ernment. week, and workers were awarded $10 per Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed week; in 1998 it was $8 again, and workers and negatived. received a $14 per week increase; in 1999 it Ms HALL—Mr Speaker, thank you very was $8 a week, and workers received a $12 much for allowing me to continue my contri- per week increase. Finally, the Howard gov- bution. I was aware that there was an agree- ernment fought to give workers an increase ment that this debate should be allowed to of $11 a week but the Industrial Relations continue until eight o’clock. I was just a tiny Commission awarded $17 a week. It is a

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 149 very poor record that shows where this gov- This legislation is a disgrace. The ap- ernment is coming from. proach is not one that should be sanctioned The government’s approach to getting this by a civilised society such as ours in Austra- legislation through parliament has been to lia. These laws strike at the heart of our de- ask: ‘How far can we go?’ and ‘How can we mocracy and take people’s control over their trick the Australian people into believing our lives away from them. It is a move towards a rhetoric?’ It is all about smoke and mirrors US system, a system of working poor. In and pushing through extreme legislation. The eight years, there has been no increase in the reality is that this legislation is designed to minimum wage there: the minimum wage is exploit workers, not to create opportunities. $5.13 an hour. In a strong economy, you do not need to un- The unfair dismissal provisions of this dermine families. This legislation is under- legislation allow for the removal of protec- mining workers and families. tion for millions of Australians. There will no Under the current system, which is sup- longer be an award system or the safety net posed to be so bad that we need these draco- that underpins the labour market. The legis- nian changes, these extreme changes, we lation gets rid of penalty rates for weekend have a strong economy, a historically low work and gets rid of shift allowances. Over level of industrial disputes, sustained produc- time they will be gone. Allowances, public tivity and economic growth and strong and holidays, annual leave loading and meal record high profits for companies. That is breaks are all under threat from this legisla- hardly a system that is broken. Why change a tion. You name it: it is up for grabs. There system that is working so well? If it is not will be pressure on workers to sign AWAs. If broken, don’t change it. I remember very they do not sign them they will have no job. distinctly the Prime Minister arguing that Proposed new section 120B outlines very way when the republic debate came before clearly that if an employer insists that an this parliament—if it ain’t broke, don’t employee signs an AWA in order to get a job change it. To my way of thinking, this sys- it will not be considered to be duress. tem is not broken, so why should you change This legislation will strike at the fabric of it? our society. This will happen because of the This legislation will allow businesses to actions of the most arrogant and extreme unilaterally determine the pay and conditions government in Australia’s history. Despite of workers, without involving unions or in- this government’s massive advertising and dustrial tribunals and without collective bar- propaganda campaign, which is an assault on gaining or awards. It is legislation that will the Australian people, the government has give maximum power to the employers and not been able to dupe the Australian people. minimum power to the workers. That is the The Howard government has failed there. Howard government’s approach to all issues. Let me give people an idea of the situa- It will create an imbalance of power. It is tion. Numerous people have contacted my taking Australia back to the 19th century. It office. I have had two public meetings that a is a return to the old master-servant situation, large number of people within the electorate where we had seven-year-olds up chimneys. have attended. This is an issue that ordinary, These days it will not be seven-year-olds up average working people are concerned about. chimneys, but it will be the equivalent. Mr Ross Iserief of Budgewoi says:

CHAMBER 150 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

If the I.R. law is passed will the government be The member for Dobell talked about un- under the same obligation as the rest of the work- fair dismissal claims being just go away ers of Australia or just hanging onto the pay rises money to avoid the costs involved in dis- of the judges? I don’t believe that the government putes. He should have some respect for the of the day will give up that perk. workers in his electorate. He should be He does not believe that the government of aware of the fact that most workers are dedi- the day has the authority to do this. He is cated and really care about ensuring that very critical of the advertising campaign that their place of employment prospers, because the government has launched. Another con- the prospering of their place of employment stituent, Mr Bob Crawford, of Belmont, has ensures the security of their jobs. gone through the advertisement that the gov- The member for Throsby highlighted the ernment has put in the papers. He picks out a fact that the member for Dobell was parrot- few areas. He speaks of the workplace rela- ing the lines that had been prepared for him. tions system. He says: That was shown again in the Main Commit- Current workplace relations systems are standing tee today when I challenged him by asking in the way of what? Please explain. him a question and he refused to answer it. If He wants the government to explain. He it is not written, he cannot say it. The people does not agree that it has been undermining of Dobell deserve a member that understands the prosperity of the country, for the reasons the issues that are important to them. I have stated. He highlights all the issues in I would like to challenge the member for relation to this legislation. I seek to table his Dobell to have a debate with me on the Cen- letter. tral Coast on the issue of industrial relations. Leave granted. I will be arranging a public meeting in the Ms HALL—I thank the House. I felt that very near future, and I will be asking him to I needed to table the letter as I have limited come along and debate this issue so that I time remaining. I would now like to focus on can tell the people of the Central Coast why I two speeches that were made in the House have opposed this legislation and why I will on Monday night. One was made by the oppose it all the way along. He can share member for Throsby. The other was made by with the people of the Central Coast why he the member for Dobell. thinks that making their jobs less secure, at- In his speech, the member for Dobell tacking their working conditions and putting spent considerable time attacking the opposi- in place legislation that will lead to a loss of tion frontbench and very little time justifying pay should be accepted by them. I am look- the position that he has taken and how these ing forward to debating this issue at great changes will improve the lives of the work- length with the member for Dobell. ers in his electorate. He talked about the fact This legislation is a disgrace. It is un- that he does not believe that the reforms will Australian. It is removing fairness and de- have any impact on job security. He says the cency from our society. It will lead to lower legislation will not remove protection against wages and poorer conditions for the most unlawful termination. It is not unlawful ter- vulnerable people in our society. When these mination that is going to make over two mil- industrial relations changes are coupled with lion workers’ jobs insecure; it is the removal the Howard government’s welfare to work of the unfair dismissal provisions that the legislation, the least secure, the lowest member for Dobell supports all the way. skilled, the people with disabilities and sin-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 151 gle parents will become Australia’s working penalty rates and overtime loadings. This poor, and this government will have achieved legislation simplifies the agreement-making the Americanisation of Australia’s work- process. It opens the path to more suitable place. dispute resolutions. It provides for protection We will have a situation like the one I against unlawful termination. Most impor- viewed in the Michael Moore documentary tantly, it sets in place a fairer unfair dismissal Bowling for Columbine, which depicted par- system—one that does not discourage em- ents going to work early in the morning and ployers from hiring new staff, one that does returning home after dark. It does not end not allow for frivolous claims and one that with workers. Every pensioner will be af- does not do damage to our economy and fected by this draconian legislation. As aver- hamper job creation. age weekly earnings are pushed down, so Let us be clear about this: this legislation will the pension be pushed down. is firmly aimed at improving working condi- Who will benefit? The government’s tions for Australian men and women. It is mates in big business—the people whose about creating a flexible system that will approval this government sought before re- meet the needs of all Australians as well as leasing details of the legislation. That can be challenges for the 21st century. It is about a verified by the fact that the Business Council system that strongly adheres to the values of of Australia is conducting a $6 million adver- a fair go for all and it retains the important tising campaign to sell the government’s leg- conditions that we have worked hard to se- islation. (Time expired) cure over the years while jettisoning some of the antiquated aspects of the system that are Mrs ELSON (Forde) (7.45 pm)—I am clearly holding us back. pleased to have this opportunity to contribute to the debate on this very important piece of I want to state my support for this legisla- legislation. The Workplace Relations tion, and I want to state that support in the Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 context of my strong working class origins. I builds on the substantial reforms that have have always been what those opposite would been introduced by our government since call a battler. I realise that it is a term that is 1996. It moves to establish a single national often bandied around this House very system of workplace relations with the estab- loosely, but I really mean it in a traditional lishment of the Australian Fair Pay Commis- sense. I was one of nine children. I left sion. It sets in place the Australian fair pay school at 13½ to work in a factory to help and conditions standard that will protect support the family. I have had a range of real minimum wages. It will protect annual leave jobs in retail, in running my own business and it will protect parental leave. It will also and in fundraising for the disabled. I have protect personal leave and the 38-hour work- raised eight children in very difficult times ing week. So I can assure the member for under Labor. I have had second and third Shortland that she can tell her constituents mortgages to keep my house and family that they have nothing to worry about. home. I have not come to this place with the privileges and comfortable upbringing of This legislation sets in place protected those opposite. award conditions that must form part of any bargaining process, such as public holidays, I say all of this for no other reason than rest breaks, incentive based payments and the fact that Labor and the unions are once bonuses, annual leave loadings, allowances, again trying to turn this important policy

CHAMBER 152 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 debate into some kind of class warfare bat- Henny Penny style, telling everyone that the tleground. They have made some utterly out- sky was about to fall—life would never be rageous allegations, some utterly baseless the same, our country would be ruined, our claims, and it is all in the name of unions economy would be devastated, our unem- retaining their power and Labor desperately ployment would increase and people across trying to gain power. The implication is that the nation would be worse off. But tax re- the government do not care about workers, form, including cutting income tax and abol- that they do not understand the struggles of ishing a raft of Labor’s hidden taxes, has Australian workers and that all bosses are been introduced and implemented. The funny cruel and heartless and are only concerned thing is that none of Labor’s dire predictions about the bottom line. This implication is so have come true—not one. Life went on in a far removed from reality, it is truly laugh- manner now expected by the Australian peo- able. ple: unemployment decreased, the economy As the Prime Minister has said many continued to grow strongly and consumer times in this place, this government has been spending continued to reflect the Australian the best friend Australian workers have ever people’s optimism. had. Under the Howard government real With this legislation Labor and the unions wages have risen, living standards continue are trying to do the exact same thing: they to rise and interest rates have remained low, are trying to scare the Australian people into which helps to relieve pressure on the family believing that the sky is about to fall. Kim budget. Equally important, though, is that we Beazley has even compared these reforms have given more people the chance to be a with terrorism, saying that they were a mas- worker by helping the economy grow and sive threat to civil liberties—greater than the businesses create well over a million new government’s antiterrorism laws. Then of jobs. Unemployment in the electorate of course there were all those Labor people and Forde has dropped to five per cent, the best the Greens—those conspiracy theorists— figure for the past 20 years. This is an impor- who said that the Prime Minister was merely tant point: we have helped more people be- trying to deflect interest in the legislation by come workers. If the trade unions had real making the announcement that he did last relevance, or served a genuine purpose in the week and rushing the changes to our antiter- workplace, they should have been able to rorism laws that yesterday helped facilitate increase their membership rather than have it the arrest of 17 people suspected of plotting continuing to fall. a terrorist attack. We all agree on this side We can contrast all of this with Labor’s ef- that that is quite frankly beyond the pale. fort the last time they were in office. We That is the worst form of playing politics should all keep this uppermost in our minds. with a serious national issue. Believe me, the We had record high unemployment, record Australian people will remember this. high interest rates, living standards falling But such is the hysteria that Labor and the and real wages decreasing—yet, at every unions have sought to create in relation to turn, they opposed the things we have done these reforms. Greg Combet said on 3 No- to create a strong economy and give people a vember that all employees will lose their better lifestyle. Labor opposed tax reform unfair dismissal protection if their employer and they made many outrageous claims claims to have made an operational change. about how it would impact on people. They The fact is that this is not true. The employee ran around, in what became their signature still has the right to make an unfair dismissal

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 153 claim and the Industrial Relations Commis- ing men and women in the Australian work sion would determine whether the employer force. I know that time is precious in this had made a strong enough case that the dis- debate, so I will conclude now. The Austra- missal was for genuine operational reasons. lian people have waited long enough and It is simply ridiculous to assert, as Kim they deserve a first-rate industrial relations Beazley did the very same day, that the boss system that will truly meet their needs now could use the operational reasons claim to and into the future. I am pleased to strongly sack someone who refused to buy his lunch. support this legislation, and I commend it to The Industrial Relations Commission would the House. never buy that; it just would not happen. On Ms GRIERSON (Newcastle) (7.54 the very same day, Simon Crean said it pm)—I rise to speak on the Workplace Rela- would be— tions Amendment (Work Choices) Bill The SPEAKER—Order! The member for 2005—or the Workplace Relations Amend- Forde will refer to members by their title or ment (Work Choices Not) Bill—to register their office. my complete opposition. Perhaps it will not make the sky fall, as the member for Forde Mrs ELSON—a case of taking the AWA said, but it will certainly rock Australian or the sack, when that member knows full families to their foundations, which are quite well that, under section 170CK(2G) of the fragile. In the little time that I have, I would act, it will continue to be unlawful to sack an like to give some Newcastle perspective on employee for refusing to agree to an AWA, this legislation. Firstly, the Prime Minister just as it will be unlawful to apply duress to has claimed it rests on the great productivity an employee in connection with an AWA. gains that will flow from this legislation. Many of the ‘maybes’ that Labor and the Quite a few economists have disagreed with unions are trying to scare people with are them and have quite bravely put their views. possible now under the current system. They are not being altered by the legislation; they I draw attention to Ross Gittins, for one already exist. The fact is that, in most work- particular reason. His articles—and there are places, it is not a case of them and us. Most many of them—have been very consistent. I employers see employees as a critical, im- have them here. He talks about the real value portant part of their business—as an asset. In of work. He talks about the identity, dignity many cases, they know them well and they and self-worth that attaches to people from plan to keep them by treating them fairly. their work. He talks about the relationships that are strengthened by the work in our It makes no sense, especially in today’s communities. He talks about the economic competitive marketplace, to drive away de- integrity and rigour that is needed to analyse cent employees. The cost of hiring and re- this legislation and its impacts. He talks training is considerable. Most businesspeople about family and community life, about the just want to get on with their business, and value of collective thought and action and they are not into power games or political the strength of our democracy—not individ- struggles. It is not about the workers for un- ual choice—and working together to keep ions; it is about their own jobs and keeping this country strong. He talks about the real hold of the little power they have these days. wealth in this country. I am proud to be part of a government that is committed to doing the right thing by all I have to say that you can take the boy out Australians, especially the decent, hardwork- of Newcastle but it is wonderful to see that

CHAMBER 154 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 you cannot take Newcastle out of the boy. and on the goodwill that exists between him The member for Forde talked about battlers. and his employees. He could have rested on I proudly represent a city of battlers who are his laurels—and I wish he had—but he did proud that they strive and thrive in spite of go on to make the point that these changes governments and in spite of any adversity are well and truly supported by ACCI. What that is thrown our way. It is also important to a pity. He also said, ‘It’s our money’—the note that this legislation shifts the most im- bosses’ money—‘that is on the line.’ portant principles in our legal constitution— It is the bosses’ money on the line, but it is the way we work and the way workplaces also workers lives on the line and the har- relations are run in this country—from the mony and cooperation that come from hav- labour power to the corporations power. ing real choices in the workplace. He said What does that mean? We are no longer talk- that, now, employers have choice over their ing about arbitration. We are no longer talk- workers just like they have over their suppli- ing about two parties—the worker and the ers. It sounded pretty impersonal to me. It employer in their workplace—we are now does not do credit to the way Neville Sawyer talking about corporations power and about has conducted his business in the Hunter and economic and employment costs. We are in Newcastle. Now we see business reality talking now about commodities and simple that will not match the rhetoric of the Prime units of production. They are, of course, hu- Minister. We have had 15 years of economic man people with human lives, human rela- success that has been built on the back of tionships and very human needs. That is one Labor reforms. That is the reality, but appar- of the most draconian parts of this legisla- ently ideology will prevail. tion. It is an insult to the heritage of this na- In the last minute I have to speak on this tion. legislation, on behalf of all the Labor speak- I will also mention another Newcastle per- ers who will not have the opportunity to put son whom I do admire: Neville Sawyer. He themselves on the record in this debate I give is the Chairman of the Australian Chamber a commitment that Labor members will op- of Commerce and Industry. I admire him for pose this bill in all its forms and in all its his success in business. He has been a great implementations across the country. We will employer. He has built up a business and be the watchdogs over this legislation and control that has created wealth not just for how it impacts on people in our electorates, him but for his employers. It has a national on people dear to us. We will do all we can and international presence. It is a leading to protect them and, when we win the next exporter. It is also a leading investor in train- election, we will return their rights and make ing and research in our region. He set up a sure that these are destroyed. I seek leave to chair of research in power engineering at the continue my remarks when the debate is re- university. I heard Neville speak at an indus- sumed. trial relations seminar conference in Newcas- Leave granted; debate adjourned. tle at the end of October. Neville proudly said that, in the 37 years that his business has ADJOURNMENT existed—and it is now all around the coun- Mr BILLSON (Dunkley—Parliamentary try—there have been three disputes. It inter- Secretary (Foreign Affairs) and Parliamen- ests me that the chairman of ACCI would say tary Secretary to the Minister for Immigra- that, knowing full well that his business was tion and Multicultural and Indigenous Af- built on enterprise bargaining agreements fairs) (8.00 pm)—I move:

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 155

That the House do now adjourn. has been doing the right thing, because their Workplace Relations hours are averaged over a year. Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney) (8.00 pm)—I What is interesting about this, of course, is was listening with interest to the member for that there is also a provision in section 91C Forde earlier this evening. I know that she is of the bill which says that the employee must a decent and thoughtful person. I can only not be required more than (a) the 38 hours but think that she has not read the Workplace averaged over the year and (b) reasonable Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill additional hours. What does this mean? What 2005 that is before the parliament, because if do ‘reasonable additional hours’ mean? It she had read this bill she would understand means, of course, that even the 38-hour that the very sorts of people she was describ- maximum averaged over a year is a complete ing—herself, with her own difficulties grow- nonsense. Can you imagine some poor ap- ing up and as a parent raising eight chil- prentice going into the employer after his or dren—are the people who would be worst her 10th week of working 70 hours a week affected by this legislation. This legislation during a busy period and saying, ‘Excuse will make it tougher than ever for workers to me, sir, but I am not sure whether you are balance their work and caring responsibili- meeting the rules’? Under this provision in ties. the Work Choices legislation that apprentice It was phenomenal today to hear the is not actually entitled to a written statement Prime Minister saying that this legislation of their employment status or a written re- was going to protect Australia from Paris cord of their pay and hours worked. They style riots. Honestly! The member for Forde have to go in and beg for some record of thinks it is going to make life easier for their hours worked. If the employer does not working families. It will not; it is going to like the look of them and they are in a busi- make life harder. The Prime Minister thinks ness with fewer than 100 employees, that is it is going to protect us from Paris style riots. the end of them—goodbye, sonny. It is beyond belief what this terrific new leg- What about stable income? Families de- islation will do. pend on stable income from week to week to Let us take a look at the reality. What do pay the bills. They depend on stable hours so the minima contained in this bill mean for they can get child care for the kids. They ordinary workers? They mean that there will need stability so they can make commit- be no minimum or maximum weekly hours, ments outside of school and child care, like as long as there is an averaging across the taking the kids to sport. No-one will give year of 38 hours a week. This is an abso- them a car loan let alone a house loan if they lutely nonsensical provision. We heard, thank do not know what they are going to be earn- goodness, in the Senate today that the gov- ing from week to week. ernment is reconsidering it. What does this This legislation gives almost total control 38-hour average mean? It means that any to the boss over how many hours a week worker can be expected to work 20 weeks in someone is going to be working, making a row for 70 hours a week and they will not planning family life impossible for families. know after those 20 weeks whether their em- It also means, because the employee has no ployer is doing the right thing. They will not control over their hours worked and the em- know until week 53 whether their employer ployer has complete say over how many hours work someone needs to do, that there

CHAMBER 156 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 is no meaningful entitlement to overtime On 11 November 1918 the guns of World payments. The 38-hour week averaged out War I fell eerily silent. On Friday we will over a year means nothing at all. A worker remember also the silence that echoed in the can be working 70 hours a week one week homes of those who did not return. More and be entitled to no overtime because the than 60,000 people paid the ultimate price boss says: ‘That’s okay. We’ll make it up for their service to our nation. On this day so later on in the year. You’ll work less later on long ago the armistice marked the end of in the year.’ You could be working 70 hours a more than four years of death and destruc- week with no penalty rates—you could be tion. For two minutes on Friday we mutely working at 3 am on Christmas Day with no reflect upon those four years, etched in our penalty rates under this legislation. That is national consciousness for 87 years, remem- what will happen in the worst jobs in this bered with gratitude for eternity. country. That is the sort of future workers We observe a tradition born in a time who have the least protection are facing. when the vast majority of Australians could There is no entitlement to higher rates of pause for a moment and recollect a name, pay for unsociable hours; no legal entitle- dwell upon a face, evoke the loss of some ment to certainty of scheduling; no legal en- precious personal moment lost for all time titlement to a written statement of employ- but in memory. In years past, services such ment status or pay or hours records; no job as those that will be held on Friday were a security; no legally mandated career struc- gathering of something still raw, something ture—nothing that says when you increase newly lost—the slow-burning grief follow- your skills you actually move up a grade. ing the loss of a father, a brother, an uncle or There is nothing in here that guarantees that. a friend still present. There was hardly a The member for Forde said that nobody is town or family in Australia that escaped the going to be forced onto an AWAs—not effects of the war. unless you are one of the 25 per cent of Aus- Today it is different. Today, thankfully, tralian workers who changes jobs every year, many Australians, particularly our younger when the boss can say to you: ‘Take it or generations, have no personal experience of leave it. If you don’t like the conditions in war. Thankfully, many Australians have no the AWA, there’s the door, son.’ (Time ex- personal context with which to know the pired) brutal, awful, mad struggle of war. They Remembrance Day have not lived through the terrible, bloody Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (8.05 consequences for millions the world over. pm)—On this day in 1989—it seems so long They have not seen with their own eyes a ago—the Berlin Wall fell and freedom broke victory overshadowed by military and politi- through and reigned across Europe. This Fri- cal errors so grave that, instead of fulfilling day, on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the the prophecy of some that it was a war to end 11th month, we will remember young Aus- all wars, sowed the seeds for a second, even tralians whose passing into the silent land we more horrendous, war. For these reasons, it is will honour by becoming silent ourselves. I different today. Out of the tragedy of war we dedicate this small piece to Roslyn Bryan can learn a lesson about ordinary people and from South Gippsland and all the amazing their deeds—that they are in fact not ordi- people that today work with our veterans. nary at all. It was not the generals and the politicians of that war who taught us the greatest lessons of hardship and endurance of

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 157 spirit, but the soldiers, sailors and nurses. It a shell burst on 2 May. Lieutenant Helmer was they who laid for us the foundations of was buried later that day in the little ceme- our belief in mateship and resilience, in tery outside McRae’s dressing station, and boldness of courage and of sticking together. McRae had performed the funeral ceremony Renewing our pledge on Friday, we will in the absence of the chaplain. It was that give thanks for the gifts we were given, the loss that provoked the poem In Flanders assurance of the survival and success of our Fields, which I will quote: liberty. We will give thanks for the monu- In Flanders’ Fields the poppies blow mental value, yet selfless effort, placed in Between the crosses, row on row, upholding and growing our then fledgling That mark our place; and in the sky democracy. Our free nation, our independent The larks, still bravely singing, fly land where our desire to think, speak, wor- ship and do was enshrined by those who Scarce heard amid the guns below. gave us the greatest sacrifice of all. We are the dead. Short days ago Following World War II, Armistice Day We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, was renamed Remembrance Day and, 87 Loved, and were loved, and now we lie years after the armistice, we continue to ac- In Flanders’ Fields. knowledge a minute’s silence, where we Take up our quarrel with the foe: wear a red Flanders poppy. The poppy was To you from failing hands we throw among the first living plants that sprouted The torch; be yours to hold it high. from the devastation of the battlefields in If ye break faith with us who die northern France and Belgium after World War I. Flanders Fields, in Belgium, marked We shall not sleep, though poppies grow the last of the battles in the first year of the In Flanders’ Fields. war in 1914. It was Colonel John McRae, Workplace Relations Professor of Medicine at McGill University Mrs IRWIN (Fowler) (8.10 pm)—If you in Canada before World War I, who first de- want to see the effect of the government’s scribed the red poppy, the Flanders poppy, as workplace relations changes, then a visit to the flower of remembrance. Although he had my electorate of Fowler would be a good been a doctor for years and had served in the place to start. Fowler has more low-income Boer War as a gunner, he went to France in families than any other urban electorate in World War I as a medical officer with the Australia, and it has the highest number of first Canadian contingent. It had been an or- unskilled workers. Fowler has the lowest deal that he had hardly thought possible. ratio of employed working age people, and McRae wrote of it: only the remote electorate of Kalgoorlie has I wish I could embody on paper some of the var- fewer women in the work force. Yet the ied sensations of that seventeen days ... Seventeen neighbouring electorate of Hughes has the days of Hades! highest ratio of employment in Australia and At the end of the first day if anyone had told us a much higher proportion of women in the we had to spend seventeen days there, we would labour force. have folded our hands and said it could not have been done. As one professor famously asked, why is it so? One explanation has been given by One death particularly affected Colonel University of Sydney Professor of Public McRae. A young friend and former student, Economics, Patricia Apps. She argues that Alexis Helma of Ottawa, had been killed by

CHAMBER 158 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 married women weigh up the cost of going Apps’s warning that GDP will contract and back into the work force against staying at the tax base will fall. This is not some doom home and receiving tax benefits. If you count and gloom prediction; it is happening today the cost of child care, transport, work in my electorate of Fowler. Unless all work- clothes, the extra cost of things like take- ers and married women, in particular, have away meals and the loss of tax benefits, you access to secure employment with flexibility can see that work becomes a marginal propo- on their terms—not the boss’s—they will sition. Add to that the disadvantage of poor increasingly choose alternatives to paid em- English skills, which make negotiating a fair ployment. Unless we have a genuinely fam- wage or flexible hours difficult, you can see ily-friendly approach to working conditions, why so many women in Fowler choose to at best, they will choose limited hours of stay at home. While my colleagues from part-time work, a trend which is also appar- other electorates complain about the shortage ent in many parts of Australia. For many of child-care places, my letterbox is full of families, Work Choices will mean that only flyers from local child-care centres advertis- one parent will choose to work, but there is ing vacancies. This is the situation under the very little indication that employers them- present IR laws. selves will offer anything to attract low- What will happen in the brave new world skilled married women back to work. of the government’s Work Choices? Quite Of course, in the case of single parents the simply, more married women will choose not government is making an offer they cannot to work. While the government and em- refuse. Welfare to Work changes place this ployer groups think that lower minium group at the mercy of employers. There are wages will make it cheaper to hire unem- no work choices for single parents. This gov- ployed people, others disagree. Professor ernment is discriminating against women Apps says that, if the minimum wage falls who have no partners. But for two-parent lower, married women will withdraw their families in Fowler Work Choices can mean labour, the GDP will contract and the tax choosing not to work, and any reduction in base will fall. This is already happening in wages can only lead to families in other elec- Fowler. It is a step back to the 1940s, before torates following that pattern. Rather than the time of washing machines and vacuum boosting the economy and employment, cleaners, when housework was a full-time Work Choices will have the opposite effect. job. Married women are not lured into the Family tax benefit payments will rise while work force by wage levels that leave them GDP and tax revenue will fall. All the worse off. They are voting with their bare economists would agree that, under those feet and heading back to the kitchen. They conditions, unemployment will definitely are no longer taking in each other’s washing, rise. This is the brave new world of Work as the modern service economy has been Choices. defined. They do not need to pay for child National Security care, they cook the family’s meals rather Ms PANOPOULOS (Indi) (8.15 pm)— than buying takeaway, and they can reduce Over the last week, we have witnessed ap- the family’s expenditure in many other ways. palling examples of typical left-wing hatred All this may gladden the heart of the of our cherished democracy and institutions. Prime Minister, with his white picket fence The majority of the electorate were right to vision of Australian families, but I wonder have trusted our Prime Minister over the last what the Treasurer thinks of Professor

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 159 four elections. They were right to assess the commissioners that they undertake the raids coalition parties as the only parties prepared to justify the legislative amendment. How to act on commonsense in the interests of our gracious of her to even admit that she had no national security. Their rejection of the Labor proof of political interference. Also, after the Party and the Democrats and their under- raids, the member for Kingsford-Smith whelming vote for the Greens have been claimed that what was really offensive was vindicated. that the Prime Minister held a press confer- Last week, an amendment was moved to ence at midday—prime time. According to the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005 to change the the member for Kingsford-Smith, the IR leg- word ‘the’ to ‘a’—in other words, to provide islation should have been more important in our police forces and ASIO with the capabil- the mind of the Prime Minister. How ex- ity to act against wannabe terrorists where traordinary that the opposition think they can the threat does not necessarily define a time dictate the timing of the Prime Minister’s or place. It was quite an acceptable amend- press conferences. ment, and it was an amendment to which the One of the main responsibilities of the Leader of the Opposition and the six Labor federal government is to protect its people. state premiers agreed. Can you imagine the government not acting What followed over the next few days was on advice received from capable authorities an extraordinary outpouring of bile and de- and, instead, only focusing on one piece of nial. The member for Grayndler responded to legislation? An important piece of reforming this amendment with crocodile tears by say- legislation debated in parliament should not ing: and does not cripple this government and stop it acting on other important matters. It’s about time the Howard Government stopped playing politics with our national security be- Members of the National Security Council cause, quite frankly, it’s just too important. are still expected to carry out their role in protecting the security of this nation. In act- The perennial hater of the Western world, ing on advice, that is all they were doing— Senator Brown, who could not possibly bring their job. himself to admit that the Prime Minister of this nation was acting in the best interests of A fundamental responsibility of govern- its citizens, said: ment is also to ensure that citizenship and the We will not be part of this situation where the privileges that accompany it are bestowed on Prime Minister is manipulating this parliament those who respect our democratic system and and the people of Australia to gain political ad- our way of life. It is perhaps time to review vantage. the eligibility for citizenship, as the UK gov- As events have illustrated, this amendment ernment has done. In the situation of dual was a key factor in the successful terrorist citizenship, those who abuse their privileges raids of two nights ago. Even Premier Bracks as citizens, preaching hatred against the val- admitted that these raids could not have oc- ues that have made this country a free and curred without the legislative changes of last prosperous nation, raising money to fund week. terrorism and inciting violence, should have their Australian citizenship revoked. But not to be outdone by the Greens, the Leader of the Democrats takes the award for I commend the foreshadowed control or- conspiracy theories, claiming that the Prime ders that go some way in dealing with terror Minister could have suggested to state police suspects who hold only Australian citizen-

CHAMBER 160 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 ship. I applaud my friend and colleague the cause it knows how emotionally effective member for Bass’s comments that those they are. found guilty of terrorism should be deported This government has promised a barbecue if they have dual citizenship. The member stopper over work and family. It has finally for Bass is a young Australian who has a achieved it with this appalling Work Choices deep passion for this nation and its values. I legislation, which it has rushed through the commend his courage in reflecting the con- House today. Has the government finally cerns and beliefs of mainstream Australia. resolved the issues of balancing work and The people of Bass made a wise choice at the family? In a horribly morbid way it has, be- last election. Not only is their representative cause this bill will be the death knoll of fam- an empathetic and hardworking local mem- ily time and family life. ber; he is making a difference in matters that The Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, go to the heart of our democracy and politi- said recently that without shared time we cal system. may as well be robots. Without relationships Whilst on my feet, the issue of multiple we are all like Winston Smith, living under entry visas also needs to be reviewed. We the totalitarian rule of Big Brother, where have madmen, so-called clerics, visiting everyone’s thoughts and behaviours are cen- from overseas—people like Sheikh Yasin. He sored, where Winston’s and Julia’s love is preaches in support of the beating of unruly considered a crime and where he must be wives and the execution of gays, he rails rehabilitated until his beliefs coincide with against democracy and he wants to convert those of the party. That is what this bill is Aborigines to Islam. Two months ago I asked doing to families: it is rehabilitating them so the Minister for Citizenship and Multicul- that they have no family time and no family tural Affairs to amend immigration laws so life. Relationships are what make our lives that it would not be so difficult to cancel worth living. We can strive for money, pos- multiple entry visas held by people like sessions, power or celebrity, but it is our re- Yasin. I call on the minister to again look at lationships that give us love, friendship, sup- making such amendments. port and comfort. Workplace Relations More than anything else, relationships de- Ms BURKE (Chisholm) (8.20 pm)—Why termine our wellbeing. I have some statistics does the government protest so loudly about from the UK—I cannot find the statistics for those ACTU ads? Is it because, as the gov- Australia, but I am sure they would bear out ernment claims, they are dishonest? No. The the same trends; mind you, they have been government is complaining because it knows applauding the IR legislation currently in the that people have identified with them so UK—and in Britain today, 1,000 older peo- much and connected so emotionally with ple die alone and unnoticed in their homes them. All of us can understand full well the every month, one in four children born in anguish of that mum who has to choose be- married households will see their parents tween her job and her kids. That can already divorced by the time they reach 16, one in happen now, never mind how tremendously three young adults do not know their bad it is going to be when this legislation neighbours faces and over one-third of all goes through. Do not be deceived: the gov- households share a meal less than once a ernment is screaming about those ads be- month. This bill will enshrine that: we will all get to sit down and have a family meal

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 161 less than once a month. This bill will take ‘We’ve got to staff the branches.’ Of course, away the ability to have rights over your we know they do not really staff branches—I hours. As the member for Sydney has ele- do not need to tell anybody that. So there gantly said, it is all about certainty of hours. was not any flexibility because, at the end of It is funny that the government keep talk- the day, you had to have the people there. ing about awards. Most organisations, both The choices were all one-way choices. The big and small, do not operate under awards choices in this bill are all one-way choices. anymore; they operate under enterprise bar- We are not talking about unions’ rights; we gaining agreements. Those agreements are are talking about families’ rights. (Time ex- underpinned by the safety net award but, in pired) those agreements, you can already negotiate Parliamentary Delegation to the Middle anything you like. Trust me: I have negoti- East ated hundreds of them, and I know. Seven Mr BAIRD (Cook) (8.25 pm)—I rise to- years ago, when I was still working for the night to speak about a recent visit to the Finance Sector Union, companies were com- Middle East by a parliamentary delegation ing to us with the idea of aggregating hours which included the members for Cook, Ma- over a year. I sat down for months working ranoa, Cowan, Swan, Blair, Kalgoorlie and out how you would do that for a bank teller. Lingiari, and Senator Johnston. We visited NAB, ANZ and Westpac all wanted that in Dubai, Kuwait and Iraq. There are several enterprise bargaining negotiations. We have things about the visit that stand out, includ- got that in the bill because this is what these ing the quality of Australia’s defence person- companies have always wanted. But tellers nel overseas. I was impressed by the articu- wanted certainty because they are mostly late way in which they presented their plans female and they are part-time. They needed for the area, the way they spoke of the need certainty about the money they took home to get along with the local community, their and they needed certainty about their hours flexibility and, of course, their relaxed and because of their child-care needs. laid-back manner. But they were still very It is not just about when your children are focused on their objective, particularly when little—like mine—either; it is about when we went to Iraq. they get older. As your children get older, I was impressed by the leadership of the they need you when they come home from team, including Commodore Geoff Ledger; school. They need you at home to sit around Captain Trevor Jones, who was on duty pro- and have a shared meal. Research demon- tecting oil terminals in the north of the Ara- strates time and time again that, if you are bian Gulf; Lieutenant Colonel Roger Noble; having shared meals, your children are less and our Ambassador in Baghdad, Howard likely to fall off the wagon, they are less Brown. I would like to thank our personal likely to take drugs, they are less likely to protection unit, including Kurt Black Sin- binge drink and they are less likely to go into clair, Luke, Fletch, Cliff Bell and Adrian crime. This horrendous bill will take away Beard. We express our thanks to you for the the ability of families to have choice. It will protection you offered. We would also like to take away the ability of families to have express our appreciation to Gus McLachlan, flexibility—the flexibility will be all one the secretary of the Joint Standing Commit- way. I negotiated for months and months tee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, about what were referred to as flexible work- for the way he served the committee. He was ing hours for tellers. It always came back to:

CHAMBER 162 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 quite selfless in his whole approach to the they are involved in. With the high vote that visit. Iraq had for a constitution—it was 78 per It was particularly interesting to see the cent—there is hope for the future. They are areas in which our troops were commended. looking forward to elections on 15 Decem- The naval vessel HMAS Newcastle was pa- ber. Everyone said there were difficulties— trolling the area around the gulf oil plat- we met with the US Commander and he in- forms, which produce 80 per cent of Iraq’s dicated the difficulties—but they are moving wealth, and boarding various vessels. It was on the insurgents from Syria and there is a a very impressive group that we met. We also feeling that the fear in the general population met with some of the Air Force personnel has gone. The insurgency will continue for and, at al-Muthanna and Camp Smitty, we some time, but our troops are doing a mag- met the defence forces and travelled in nificent job in protecting the work there. Bushmaster and ASLAV vehicles. (Time expired) We met the Speaker of the Transitional The SPEAKER—Order! It being 8.30 National Assembly of Iraq, Mr Hajim Al- pm, the debate is interrupted. Hassani. Mr Al-Hassani is a Sunni who left House adjourned at 8.30 pm Iraq and studied in the United States under NOTICES the former regime. We also met the Kurdish The following notices were given: deputy speaker and the Shi’ite deputy speaker. They talked about the devastation Mr Abbott to move: that Hussein had waged on their country, the That, in relation to proceedings on the Work- legacy he left and how he had looked after a place Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill small minority and how that had resulted in a 2005, so much of the standing and sessional or- very direct negative impact on agriculture in ders be suspended to enable: Iraq and the closing off of education and the (1) the order of the day relating to the bill to be closure of the universities for some time. called on immediately; and (2) a Minister to sum up the second reading de- Mr Al-Hassani appealed to Australia for bate without delay and thereafter the follow- assistance with training in agriculture in ar- ing occurring: eas such as dryland farming and programs (a) the immediate question before the for the desalination of soil. He was particu- House to be put, then any question or larly complimentary about the quality of our questions necessary to complete the sec- troops in Iraq. He said he would like to see ond reading stage of the Bill to be put; more of them because of their valuable role (b) the Bill then to be taken as a whole dur- in trying to restore order and sanity to Iraq. It ing consideration in detail for a period was the same in al-Muthanna province, not exceeding 60 minutes, immediately where we met with the governor. The Austra- after which the question then before the lian forces seemed to be flexible in the way House to be put, then the putting with- they were dealing with Iraqis on the aid pro- out amendment or debate of any ques- jects in which they were involved. This has tion or questions necessary to complete ensured that the Australians have a very good the consideration of the Bill; and reputation as they protect the Japanese engi- (3) any variation to this arrangement to be made neers going about their work. only by a Minister moving a motion without notice. It was very interesting to see our troops at work, the quality of the people and the tasks Dr Stone to move:

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 163

That, in accordance with the provisions of the 80 Closure of Member Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient A motion may be made that a Member who is to carry out the following proposed work which speaking, except a Member giving a notice was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Com- of motion or formally moving the terms of a mittee on Public Works and on which the commit- motion allowed under the standing orders or tee has duly reported to Parliament: Fitout for speaking to a motion of dissent (from any new leased premises for AusAID at Block 20, ruling of the Speaker under standing order Section 10, known as London 11, ACT. 100), “be no longer heard”, and such ques- Mrs May to move: tion shall be put forthwith and decided with- That this House: out amendment or debate. (1) recognises that: Mr Price to move: (a) good health is the single most important That the standing orders be amended by insert- factor necessary for individuals to lead a ing the following standing order after standing happy and successful life; order 99: (b) what individuals think, eat and the 99A Questions to committee chairs amount of activity they undertake are A Question may be put to a Member in his or important determinants of health and her capacity as Chair of a committee of the wellbeing; House, or of a joint committee, in connection (c) Australians have a high incidence of with the work or duties of the committee in preventable diseases that are influenced question. by lifestyle and behaviour including Mr Price to move: cardiovascular diseases, cholesterol, That the following amendment to the Standing obesity and diabetes; Orders be adopted for the remainder of this ses- (d) for many Australians, health is simply sion: access to medical goods and services; 102B Lodging questions in writing on behalf of and constituents (e) once illness has taken hold, because of (a) A Member may lodge a question in writ- the mind/body connection, many do not ing in terms proposed by a person who have the mindset to better improve their lives in the Member’s electoral division. health until they get a ‘scare’ which often comes too late; and (b) A question in writing given under this standing order may show the name of (3) calls on the Australian Government to: the person who has proposed the ques- (a) educate youngsters in schools about tion. health and ways of preventing illness; (c) A Member may not lodge more than 25 (b) educate couples before starting a family questions in writing under this sessional on healthy lifestyles for children; order in a calendar year. (c) refocus the training of our doctors from (d) Nothing in this standing order may be ill health to good health with an empha- taken to mean that a Member must give sis on preventative care; and notice of a question proposed to the (d) implement a National Health Strategy Member by a person who lives in the with a strong focus on preventative Member’s electoral division. health. Mr Price to move: Mr Price to move: That standing order 104 be omitted and the fol- That the standing orders be amended by lowing standing orders be adopted: amending standing order 80 to read as follows:

CHAMBER 164 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

104A Answers (ii) where a petitioner is not able to pre- The answer to a question asked orally shall sent the petition in accordance with be relevant and: standing order 209(d)(i), the Mem- ber who has lodged the petition may (a) shall be concise and confined to the sub- present it to the House by reading to ject matter of the question: the asking of the House the prayer of the petition. each question must not exceed four minutes; Mr Price to move: (b) the asking of each supplementary ques- That standing order 221 be replaced with the fol- tion must not exceed one minute; lowing: (c) the time taken to make and determine 221 Modernisation and Procedure Committee points of order is not to be regarded as (a) A Standing Committee on Modernisa- part of the time for questions and an- tion and Procedure of the House of Rep- swers; resentatives shall be appointed to inquire (d) shall relate to public affairs with which into and report on practices and proce- the Minister is officially connected, to dures of the House generally with a proceedings in the House, or to any view to making recommendations for other matter of administration for which their improvement or change and for the the Minister is responsible; and development of new procedures. (e) shall not debate the subject to which the (b) The committee shall consist of the question refers. Speaker or his or her appointed Deputy Speaker, The Leader of the House or his 104B The standing orders that apply to the ask- or her appointed Deputy, the Manager of ing of a question orally shall generally ap- Opposition Business or his or her apply to the answer. pointed Deputy and eight Members, four Mr Price to move: government Members and four non- That standing order 105 be amended and the government Members. following be inserted: (c) The Secretary of the Committee will be 105C Replies to written questions the Clerk or Deputy Clerk. An answer to a question in writing shall be relevant to the question and shall be provided to the Member who asked the question within 30 days. Mr Price to move: That standing order 209 be amended and the following be included: (d) At the time provided for the presentation of petitions, the following arrangements shall apply to the presentation of petitions certified to be in conformity with the standing orders: (i) in respect of each petition, the petitioner, or one of the petitioners, may present the petition to the House by standing at the Bar of the House and reading to the House the prayer of the petition, and

CHAMBER Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 165

Wednesday, 9 November 2005 ————— The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley) took the chair at 9.30 am. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Workplace Relations Ms GRIERSON (Newcastle) (9.30 am)—Over 20 highly skilled aircraft engineers at Boe- ing Williamtown have now been locked out for 161 days for attempting to choose a collective agreement. In the five months they have been without a pay cheque to feed their families and pay their mortgages, the Howard government has spent $55 million of taxpayers’ money advertising its industrial relations package that will create more Boeing situations and less choice. The current federal system has failed to get these valuable workers back on the job maintaining our defence fighters, so the dispute has now been referred to the Industrial Rela- tions Commission of New South Wales. The Boeing workers’ rights to choose have not been protected. And I will not get to choose to debate workers’ rights because the government intends to drop its guillotine on free speech and democracy in the people’s parliament. The Prime Minister says, ‘Trust me,’ that Work Choices will increase productivity and protect the Australian way of life. What a load of rubbish! After 14 years of productivity and prosperity built on the back of the Hawke-Keating reforms, apparently our economy will be ruined if the workplace relations laws are not changed right now. Apparently, reducing workers’ rights to five minimum conditions will increase productivity and preserve our lifestyle. No, they will not: they will drive down wages, strip back conditions, remove protections and fairness built into our system over generations and threaten the standard working week, weekends and holidays that have supported family and community life in this country. This is no way to increase productivity, and these laws are no substitute for policies that make our businesses more competitive, policies that invest in R&D, skills and education or policies that assist the 1.8 million people in this country who remain underemployed or unemployed. Work Choices will not assist them to get a job or a living wage. Instead of protecting the Australian way of life, they strike at the heart of our identity and our community harmony. In my electorate of Newcastle, the work we do defines us. It is part of our ethos of ‘having a go’. But, when we lose the right to decent working hours and reasonable shifts, when we lose our weekends and public holidays, when we are pressured into cashing out half of our annual leave and when working people are treated simply as a cost item on the balance sheet to be minimised expediently, then we risk destroying the Australian way of social equity and harmony we call a fair go. We risk the social and economic alienation playing out so violently on the streets of Paris right now. The real wealth in this country stems from the pride we gain from a job well done that is properly rewarded. It is also in the time we then have spare to support our families, our friendships and our communities. We can take no pride from what will happen under Work Choices. It will be our kids looking for their first job out of high school, unskilled and older workers and parents re-entering the work force who will be most disadvantaged in negotiating AWAs. Remember what the Prime Minister said workers should do if faced with signing an unfair individual contract or having no job: ‘Go and look for another job.’ Yes, and another

MAIN COMMITTEE 166 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 and another until you give in. The workers of Australia are beginning to think it is time the Prime Minister started looking for another job, and I have to agree with them. (Time expired) Children with Disabilities Mrs HULL (Riverina) (9.33 am)—I rise today to pay tribute to the work that the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Kay Patterson, has put into bringing about some great benefits to those parents of disabled children. I was so pleased to hear that, in a $200 million package that was announced in Carers Week, parents of disabled children will have the capacity to save in a trust fund up to $500,000 for the future carer needs of their severely disabled child without that trust affecting their disability support pension. This is something that I have long advocated for, and I congratulate Senator Patterson because she is truly committed to ensuring that those families who have disabled children are able to plan for their future. There is no worse feeling than to have an ageing disabled child and to know that you as a parent are ageing and that at some stage you will depart this earth and there will be little or no provision for your disabled child. This is something that affects many people across my electorate in the Riverina. I congratulate Senator Patterson on her dedication to serving these people. I would like to point out there is other assistance. There is a package of measures which will provide access to mediation and counselling services for families, financial information kits for parents considering private provisions and more research to better inform future policy proposals. I, too, am working with a group, and I would like to thank my very good friend Bill Hurditch for taking on this as an interest of his. He knows how important this is to me—that somebody without a vested interest gets involved in how parents of ageing disabled children can plan for their future and how communities can take responsibility and apply some good guidelines as to how they will manage those disabled people within their communities. Asso- ciated with the community, families and governments of all persuasions, I believe that we can set in place a very good mechanism that will see disabled people in the community cared for into the future. But, more importantly, the parents of those disabled children will be able to have peace of mind, and peace of mind is extremely important. (Time expired) Dental Services Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (9.36 am)—We on this side of the chamber have on many occasions called on the Howard government to reinstate the Commonwealth funded Dental Health Scheme, which they abolished in 1996. The need for a scheme is undeniable and will continue to grow. Demand by those persons eligible for public state funded dental care is likely to increase by about 30 per cent over the next 10 years, while demand by those not eligible will increase by around 14 per cent, less than half. Adding to demand is the fact that the progress made in children’s oral health during the early nineties is now being reversed. In coming years these children will need more ongoing dental care than the generation who were going through school in the last decade. Since the late 1990s, dental decay in both primary and secondary school children has been increasing and, as always, it is those on low incomes who are doing it toughest. A glance at the children who passed through our local Westmead dental hospital confirms the studies by the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council, which show that children in poor groups

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 167 now have twice as many rotten teeth as those in wealthy groups. Angus Cameron, Head of Paediatric Dentistry at Westmead Hospital said, ‘The majority of people have no decay, but 20 per cent of the population has 80 per cent of the disease. The people at most risk and least able to afford things have the highest amount of disease.’ We in Parramatta have an extraordinary asset in the Westmead dental hospital, which is doing an amazing job, but it is chronically underresourced and is only able to see those in pain. In 2004 it was able to treat only around half of eligible children, many of whom needed emergency care simply because they could not afford to see a regular dentist when the condition was mild and could not get an appointment at Westmead until the condition was chronic. It must be heartbreaking for the dedicated dentists at Westmead—and for the parents of the children—that cases are unable to be treated early because of a lack of Commonwealth support to engage in preventative work. People on pensions are also more likely than the rest of the population to have decay. They are twice as likely to have lost teeth through decay, and 44 per cent of concession card holders aged between 45 and 64 avoid or put off going to the dentist because of the cost. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare dental statistics, adults on low incomes who do not have private dental insurance are 25 times more likely to have had all their teeth extracted than high-income adults with insurance. The federal government say that dental care is not their responsibility; they say it is up to the states. Yet the Australian Constitution explicitly states that dental care is a federal government responsibility. Since the abolition of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program in 1996, the waiting lists have dramatically grown. Today, around 650,000 people in Australia are waiting for public dental care and in some areas they are waiting for longer than three years. Throughout Australia the number of people on the waiting lists has increased by 42 per cent since the Commonwealth government program was stopped. I call on this government to reinstate the program for the sake of the most vulnerable in our community. (Time expired) Muslim Community Mr LINDSAY (Herbert) (9.39 am)—I welcome the leadership group from Gold Creek; it is good to see you with us this morning. I rise to speak on behalf of the Muslim community in my city of Townsville and Thuringowa. The people in the Muslim community are just as Aus- tralian as anyone else is in this country. They are peace-loving people and they are just as ap- palled as anyone else by the events of the last 24 hours. In this parliament a number of people have been considerably diminished by their comments and actions in the last week. In particular, the Australian Greens, the Australian Democrats and a small number of members of the Australian Labor Party must very much regret—and I hope they express that regret—what has been said in relation to the antiterrorism measures that the government put through. It is to the credit of the Prime Minister and of the Leader of the Opposition that they reacted strongly and properly to protect the security of our country. But we see the Australian Greens making themselves even more irrelevant, as they expressed outrage that the Senate was recalled. Thank God the Senate was recalled. We heard the Leader of the Australian De- mocrats say that the Prime Minister actually asked the police to go and do a raid—or words to that effect. How objectionable and how irrelevant is that?

MAIN COMMITTEE 168 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

I have been disappointed by the reaction of some of the leaders of the Muslim community. What they need to be saying is not, ‘We’re going to be targeted.’ What they need to be saying is: ‘All Muslims reject absolutely, as all other Australians do, what’s happened. We know we won’t be targeted, because Australians understand that there are just these extremists who are doing this and it’s not the Muslim community itself.’ I would suggest to the Muslim leaders that they change their approach. I was in Pakistan recently. I was at one of the very significant madrassas. I was able to talk to many Muslims, and I can tell you that their clear message to our delegation was: ‘We utterly reject terrorism and extremism. The holy Koran does not in any way support terrorism and extremism. There is no basis in the Koran for that. We are a peace-loving people. We have the same values as the great religions of the world, as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Ju- daism and so on, and we absolutely 110 per cent teach peace and harmony for all peoples of the world.’ Long may that continue. Balgownie War Memorial Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (9.42 am)—Last Saturday I had the great pleasure of attending the re-dedication service of the Balgownie War Memorial in my electorate. This war memorial is unique. It is solely dedicated to World War I and lists all the names of the locals who served in the war, both those who died and those who returned home—111 local people. It also includes one woman who served as a nurse, and it is unique in that as well. The war memorial was originally dedicated in 1930 and was achieved through the fundraising efforts of a local mining community in the midst of the Depression. Despite their daily struggles, local people donated what small amounts they could to the original fund in order to erect a memorial to honour the sacrifice and dedication of the young people of their community who had served. That community spirit, even in the most difficult of times, remains a feature of the character of our local people to this day. It is well represented in the efforts of the volunteer group who accomplished the improvements to the memorial and organised Sat- urday’s re-dedication service. My thanks on behalf of all in our community go to Michael Delhaas and the Balgownie War Memorial Fund volunteers for their efforts and, ultimately, their great success. I also commend the local organisations that got behind their dream with funds and resources to make it happen. We acknowledge the support of the Mineworkers Trust; family members of the listed men and woman; local small businesses and community groups such as the Bal- gownie Village Community Centre, the Balgownie CWA and the Balgownie Museum; local veterans groups and the Wollongong RSL sub-branch; Wollongong City Council; and local media, including, the Balgownie Bugle, the Northern Leader, the Advertiser, the Illawarra Mercury and WIN TV. A war memorial is important as a physical reminder, not only of war and its cost but of the individual lives touched by war. It was particularly important to me to attend and address this re-dedication service as the last young man listed on the memorial is my great-uncle, James Young—or Uncle Jim, as he was known to all the family. Uncle Jim returned from war after being twice wounded on the battlefields of France. He returned to work in the coalmines and retired to the banks of Lake Illawarra to enjoy his fishing, prawning and bowling. His is a real story, as is each of those listed on the memorial, and it was pleasing to see so many of the de- scendants of these service men and women attend on Saturday to pay their respects and re-

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 169 member the individual stories of their families. Despite the occasional rain, a large number of local community members attended on Saturday, including schoolchildren. There were also dignitaries, including representatives from Great Britain, Belgium and New Zealand. It was an important day for all of us. I send my sincere congratulations and thanks to all of those community members involved in this very important community event. (Time expired) Gilmore Youth Leadership Forum Mrs GASH (Gilmore) (9.45 am)—Some good things do happen in politics and a good thing happened in Gilmore recently. A youth leadership forum was held on 13 to 15 October at HMAS Creswell. Although just outside my electorate, most of the participants were from my electorate. Participants in the forum were accommodated in tents. They had to cope with bull ants and thunder and lightning. Nine schools participated—Nowra High, Kiama High, St John’s High, Nowra Anglican College, Bomaderry High, Nowra Christian School, Vincentia High, Shoalhaven High and Ulladulla High—and there were 90 students and 26 group leaders. They had numerous keynote speakers, including News Ltd national bureau chief Ian McPhedran and former test pilot Commander Tony DiPietro. The forum could not have happened without the support of Captain Tony Aldred and his team at HMAS Creswell. The forum saw students take part in team-building activities and leadership focused sessions. It culminated in the completion of a community project in which the students and team leaders carried out their own backyard blitz on the South Nowra Rotary Park, which now looks absolutely splendid. They did a lot of greenery work and painted all the toilets, picnic tables and chairs. The community project could not have happened without the support of Shoalhaven City Council, but a special thanks must go to Mark Ettridge of Willow Tree Train- ing in Ulladulla. Mark works with young kids at risk and he brought to the forum, at very short notice, a different perspective on leadership, which the kids really appreciated. He came in his biker gear and had his beard nicely trimmed. He spoke to the kids in language they absolutely understood. Our thanks also go to the Shoalhaven Area Consultative Committee of Allan Mulley and Milton Lay for helping to coordinate the inaugural event. It was a great success not only from our perspective but also from the perspective of the students. We have had some very positive comments on the feedback forms and captured on video. I want to thank the member for Mitchell, the Hon. Alan Cadman, and Roberta Bell from his office. They instigated the youth leadership forum in the electorate of Mitchell. The member for Mitchell planted the seed for the forum. While the seedling did not grow exactly like its mother, it certainly grew just as strong. We also want to thank our sponsors, without whom we would not have been able to conduct the forum. We thank the students who took part. The smiles on their faces on the final night were reward enough; their positive comments were the icing on the cake. The Gilmore youth leadership forum looks set to stay for many years to come. Our young people are absolutely fantastic. They are great ambassadors for the area and for Australia. Besides the youth leadership course, we have a youth volunteer initiative program in which young people volunteer to go to the SES, surf-lifesaving, the police, National Parks and Wildlife and the bushfire brigade. This, of course, also generates new members. Finally, I want to thank Shaun Burns, from my office, and former staff member Andrew Guile for helping to run the event. They stayed with

MAIN COMMITTEE 170 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 the young people for the whole weekend. I cannot emphasise enough how impressed I was. (Time expired) Workplace Relations Mr MURPHY (Lowe) (9.48 am)—I am very angry to learn that the government will be gagging the second reading debate on the so-called Work Choices bill 2005 before I get my opportunity to speak on the bill, thus preventing me from fully voicing my constituents’ grave concerns regarding the government’s extremely unfair and divisive industrial relations changes. These changes seek to undermine the principles of fairness that have underpinned the Australian industrial relations system for 100 years. It is bad enough that these changes seek to destroy the rights of Australian workers which have been achieved through generations of hard work but, incredibly, the government has not provided a shred of evidence as to how the bill will improve living standards in Australia. Most economists cannot see where all the so-called employment and productivity gains are going to come from. The only gains they can see will come from the government lowering the minimum wage and slowing wages growth overall. The government’s outrageous $50 million advertising campaign has misled the Australian people by making unsubstantiated assertions about the benefits of the proposed changes and understating the extent to which employees will lose their rights. The nonsense regarding the government’s message about the benefits of centralising the industrial relations system in Australia is underlined when one considers that most businesses already deal with only one industrial relations system. The heaviest blow contained in these changes is the disgraceful attack on the living standards of Australian employees and their families by removing the no disadvantage test from collective and individual agreements. This allows employees to be forced onto an Australian workplace agreement that will inevitably reduce their pay and conditions. How can any individual employee negotiate from a position of strength and prevent the loss of penalty rates, shift loadings, overtime, holiday pay and other award conditions? Their only choice is to choose to stay employed, and that is no choice at all. This is an unfair position now but it will be an impossible position if the Australian economy suffers a downturn. Shamefully, the government will at the same time cut the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, thus eliminating the role of the independent umpire to resolve disputes and ensure workers have fair wages and conditions. These proposals deliberately distort the workplace bargaining relationship in favour of employers and against employees. This can only reward unscrupulous bosses and, in so doing, undermine the majority of honest and fair-minded employers. The legislation will also remove important rights and protections for small business operators providing services to large firms who were, until this legislation arose, able to seek a remedy for unfair contracts under state industrial relations acts. The Howard government is now so arrogant that it believes it can ignore the concerns of the Australian community and the churches about the adverse impacts these changes will have on employees and their families. In my view, one of the worst changes is the proposal to give employers the power to change employees’ work hours without reasonable notice. This undermines family life in Australia—something I believe I was elected to protect. I conclude with a message about these changes from one of my many angry constituents:

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 171

The proposed Workchoices legislation represents a threat to Australian culture and lifestyle because it reduces the bargaining power of employees placing them in an untenable situation should an immoral or unethical request be made. The changes are unacceptable because they threaten social institutions which make regular use of the five day week, such as sporting clubs and churches. (Time expired) Queensland: Health Mrs MAY (McPherson) (9.52 am)—I rise today to speak about a very serious issue that is facing residents in my electorate and, in fact, in the whole of Gold Coast City. I do not believe there would be a person in Australia who has not heard about the Crime and Misconduct Commission’s inquiry into health in Queensland. The inquiry was instigated because of problems originally at Townsville Hospital concerning a man called Dr Patel. The inquiry actually became known as the inquiry into Dr Death. Unfortunately, the serious issues facing the Gold Coast as regards health are still with us. In fact, another 261 patients have been added to the Beattie government’s increasingly embarrassing elective surgery waiting list on the Gold Coast. We have a wonderful public hospital on the Gold Coast and it is staffed by some wonderful people but, unfortunately, funding has not flowed through to that hospital, and the people on the Gold Coast are now suffering the consequences. In August this year, the hospital’s cancer unit was closed down through a lack of funding and a lack of staff, and new cancer patients from August on had to be taken to Brisbane to undergo their chemotherapy and other treatments needed. We even had a row over who was going to reimburse those people for the travel they had to undertake to Brisbane, which I think was very unfair on those patients. We are still waiting for the reopening of that cancer unit on the Gold Coast. Today I will put on the record that, from 1 October this year, 2,931 patients were waiting for elective surgery at Gold Coast Hospital, compared to 2,670 on 1 July—so we now have another increase that is making the waiting list really unbearable for those people. Once you end up on a waiting list and you are waiting for surgery, that adds to your injury or the thing that is wrong with you that needs that surgery—it escalates. It is making that problem a lot harder for those people to deal with. I think it is important that the Beattie government look very hard at the funding coming to Gold Coast City. We are being told we are getting a new public hospital in Gold Coast City. We are very concerned, though, that the hospital we have is going to close down if the government build a new one. We have no confirmation that the hospital we already have, the public hospital that is serving Gold Coast City, will remain in the city and that we will get a second hospital. We have a city of half a million people. They need to be serviced. They need to know that they have the state health services they deserve. So I say to the Beattie government: put the dollars on the table, put some funding into health and ensure that the residents of Gold Coast City have the health services they deserve. Remembrance Day Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (9.55 am)—I rise today to speak briefly regarding Remembrance Day, 11 November, which will be this Friday. Remembrance Day is an important day in the history of our country. It is a time to remember the sacrifice of those who died for Australia in wars and conflicts over many years. It originated with Armistice Day back in 1918, when on 11 November at 11 am the guns of the Western front fell silent after more than four years of

MAIN COMMITTEE 172 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 continuous warfare. The common understanding of that time is well known to many, but the depth of sacrifice that Australians in particular have made over generations, and sometimes the detail there, I think has been not quite so known. In the First World War overall some 70 million people were mobilised and between nine million and 13 million people were killed, with perhaps as many as one-third of them with no known grave. In the context of Australia’s conflicts over the years, if you go back to 1885 in the Sudan you had something like 770 forces overseas, nine killed and three wounded. Then on to the Boer War, where 16,463 were overseas, 606 killed and 538 wounded. In the Boxer Rebellion 560 forces were overseas and six were killed. In World War I, 421,802 were overseas, 61,720 were killed, 137,013 were wounded and there were 3,647 POWs, with 109 POW deaths. In World War II, 575,799 forces were overseas, 39,366 were killed, 23,477 were wounded and there were 28,756 POWs, with 8,031 POW deaths. In Korea 17,164 people were overseas, 339 were killed, 1,584 were wounded and there were 29 POWs. In Malaya 7,000 were overseas, 36 were killed and 20 were wounded. In Malaysia 3,500 were overseas, 15 were killed and nine were wounded. In Vietnam 50,001 were overseas, 520 were killed and 2,398 were wounded. In the Gulf War, 750 were overseas. In Afghanistan one has been killed. There have been peacekeepers serving in many conflicts in the world over the years. Seven have been killed. The depth of sacrifice is clear for all of us to see. It is something that we should at this time remember. I would also like to mention that there are still over 114,000 war widows receiving DVA war widow pensions and thousands more who have not claimed. Some 239 people are still at this stage receiving an orphans pension. So the nature of the sacrifice is there. It is a great sacrifice. It is something that, this Friday, people should remember. (Time expired) Australian Capital Territory: Jail Mr NAIRN (Eden-Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (9.58 am)— Yesterday the ACT government finally lodged a development application for a jail at Hume. I have spoken about this project in the House before. This project is the ACT Chief Minister’s pride and joy—to him the most important piece of infrastructure needed in the ACT. It is more important, for example, than a world-class convention centre that would bring economic growth to the ACT. As far as Jon Stanhope is concerned, it is more important to look after the interests of the criminal element instead. This jail is going in the wrong place. A better site is available north-east of the airport. But Stanhope wants to put it in a location that will affect people who do not vote in the ACT. There are very good planning reasons why this is the wrong location. In fact, there are six that I have come up with just by having a quick look at the documents that were finally lodged yesterday. Even though they have started the roadworks for the site, they only lodged their development application yesterday. I do not know where else in Australia you could actually do that. It is the wrong site because there is a better site available. When you do planning work you obviously choose the best possible location, particularly when it is infrastructure. There is a better site, and it was made available to the ACT government. The traffic issue on the Monaro Highway will be horrendous for the Tuggeranong people. Tuggeranong people think that it is not going to affect them, but they have to travel down it every day. With another set of lights slowing up the 100-kilometre an hour stretch of the Monaro Highway, they will soon be complaining about that. The Monaro Highway is a major

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 173 access road in and out of Canberra, the nation’s capital, so the first and last thing you will see as you come in from the south and go out again is a jail. There will be structures up to 12 metres high with lighting and things like that which will really cause a problem. It is built right on Jerrabomberra Creek. The one-in-100-year flood level is very close. A development like this will increase the intensity of water into Jerrabomberra Creek, particularly during a flood period. That could be a major problem as well. The landscaping that will be required is in conflict with the security of such a site. It is bizarre that the only thing the National Capital Authority can do, unfortunately, is to ask for particular landscaping along the Monaro Highway and elsewhere, but that will shield the lighting that they would need around a jail. The New South Wales government is going to build another jail in Kiama or Nowra where ACT criminals could go. People in the ACT are used to going to the coast on weekends. They could go down there, and I think that would be a much more economical thing for the ACT to do. I call on Jerrabomberra and Letchworth residents to lodge submissions against this development application by 29 November 2005. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—In accordance with sessional order 193, the time for members’ statements has concluded. THERAPEUTIC GOODS AMENDMENT BILL 2005 Second Reading Debate resumed from 17 August, on motion by Mr Pyne: That this bill be now read a second time. Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Reid) (10.01 am)—The opposition essentially supports the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 2005, and that support has been assisted in the last day by two events. One is the determination yesterday that the Therapeutic Goods Administration would establish a joint industry-regulator committee to undertake the preparation of guidelines for applications of new sanctions in the complementary medicines sector. That has been welcomed by the complementary medicines industry: ‘It’s a very positive outcome from which we can relieve some of the angst that has been in the industry.’ It will parallel the complementary medicine and industry consultative group. As I say, Mr Crosthwaite, on behalf of the complementary medicines sector, has welcomed the change. Our support has been augmented by the agreement of the government to an amendment dealing with the seeming difficulty we had of two forms of search warrants for civil and criminal prosecutions. Obviously, there will be some difficulty, as the opposition understands, if you had to decide before a search what type of prosecution you are intending after the evidence is produced. So the government has agreed that there will be one form of search warrant. The new penalty regime—which, as I say, has caused some concern amongst players—has been described by some as draconian. The establishment of this consultative committee yesterday is a welcome outcome. It should have occurred earlier. It reflects submissions that were made to a Senate inquiry into this legislation which went down the same road of complaints— that there was uncertainty, a lack of a review process and very serious outcomes for companies if they were to be perceived negatively with regard to the enforcement of these provisions.

MAIN COMMITTEE 174 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

It is a concern that the Australian National Audit Office was less than laudatory of the operation of the TGA. I will briefly quote a few extracts from its summary of the TGA. Point 19 states: … the TGA does not have documented contingency plans to support its regulatory obligations when international events prevent it from executing the overseas audit program. Point 50 states: There is inadequate information to support good performance management. The published effectiveness indicator provides only limited insight into the TGA’s effectiveness in achieving its regulatory objective. Point 26: The ANAO considers that the TGA could increase the transparency and accountability of its audit process. For example, more robust and transparent procedures for the handling and resolution of complaints, appeals and disputes would greatly assist in addressing manufacturer concerns. Those kinds of comments flowed throughout the ANAO analysis of the TGA operation. Point 53: The TGA’s regulatory framework is supported by a substantial number of standard operating procedures. However, greater clarity and guidance is required for some key aspects of the TGA’s regulatory functions. Point 58: Transparency to manufacturers and sponsors can be enhanced, both to facilitate manufacturers’ ability to comply with regulatory requirements, and to improve the TGA’s accountability for its actions. Indeed, that essentially was a condemnation of the TGA’s transparency, its operation with the industry and the perception of the way it audits its own operation. The concern was such that the Minister for Health and Ageing established a review by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, which still has not been published. That is indicative of the concerns here. We have a situation where the TGA has come under attack. It has been looked at by the National Audit Office. The Audit Office said that its operation was not as it should be, and the government has decided to launch this separate review into its operation. In that context, one would have to be careful about giving too much power to the organisation if it has attracted this kind of criticism. That is the dilemma we are in. After the scandal of the Pan Pharmaceutical operation—where it was found that there had been perhaps not enough supervision in the field, that effective remedies and prosecution were not as strong as they should be and that the company operated as it wished for quite a while, endangering Australian consumers—there obviously was a need to act. The opposition does not resile from that. Obviously there was a need for more stringent penalties and more accountability of directors—that was a particular aspect of Pan Pharmaceutical that came to prominence. We have a situation here where, for the health, safety and security of the Austra- lian public, greater penalties were required but at the same time they are in the hands of an organisation that has been subject to extensive criticism. As I say, that is the dilemma we are in. Given the seriousness of what can occur in these situations, we do support the legislation’s essential thrust. We cannot have harm or injury to people because a company has blandly continued to operate in an unsafe fashion, confident that they will not face serious prosecution.

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 175

What we see in this legislation is a new faults based offence, with an aggravating element, attracting a maximum of $440,000 for corporations or individuals and/or five years imprisonment; another regime of fault based offence, with no aggravating element, which will continue to operate; and very strong penalties of $220,000 and $440,000. Obviously this has upset a number of players in the industry. However, as I say, we are talking about serious matters. We are talking about great danger that can be encountered by Australians. The opposition endorses the new liability of the body corporate or executive officers, those directly involved in the day-to-day management of the company, if that corporate body commits an offence or contravenes a civil penalty provision under the act. It is a very significant measure which taps directly into the increasingly demanding obligations of corporate governance in Australia and in this particular field it does seem to be merited. A major thrust of the legislation is the presence of alternative verdicts in respect of various tier defences. A jury will be entitled to convict a person of a lesser offence, if the jury acquits the person of an offence specifying an aggravating element but is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of facts which could prove the person guilty of the lesser offence in respect of the same conduct. There is an alternative stream of civil and criminal offences. The civil provisions will apply to certain existing offences and will impose penalties of $330,000 or $550,000 for the individual and $3.3 million and $5.5 million for a corporation. What we have in this legislation is a stream of civil and criminal alternative penalties and infringement notices. Where that process is possibly very lengthy or where civil proceedings may not be the optimal way of dealing with certain regulatory breaches, the bill proposes to introduce infringement notices as an alternative. They will set out the particulars of the offence and will give the recipient an option of either paying the penalty set out in the notice to expiate the offence or having the matter dealt with by a court. As well as that, there are enforceable undertakings. Those that are in breach of a certain regulatory requirement may have the option of providing undertakings to correct, address or remedy noncompliance as an alternative to having sanctions imposed. Where undertakings are accepted, they would be enforceable by a court. The essential thrust of the legislation is to provide a large number of alternatives. Obvi- ously, it would be in the interest of some companies and individuals to look at an alternative way of having their matter handled, whether because of the time involved, because of the perceived public image of the company or individuals or because of the process involved and how long that process would take. So a major element of this legislation is the availability of alternatives. Some companies have expressed fears that the availability of these easier options might lead people to admitting guilt in situations where that was actually arguable. Because they are not going to be hit as hard, they might choose to go down that road, and that might act as an unfortunate push for the company to admit guilt. With regard to overseas conduct, the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 2005 proposes to extend the reach of the act to cover certain conduct by Australian citizens or Australian body corporates overseas. We are quite aware that, with globalisation, the movement of people and the operations of corporations in other countries is increasing. This is an increasing reality, as it is with criminal matters. Australian law will reach, firstly, the making of false and misleading statements in a material matter in connection with an application to include therapeutic goods on the Australian

MAIN COMMITTEE 176 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 register; secondly, the manufacture, supply, export or import of counterfeit therapeutic goods; and, thirdly, the manufacture or supply of tampered goods and the failure to notify the secretary of the department about actual or potential tampering of therapeutic goods. The reach of the legislation will be enhanced; that is obviously a laudatory move. There are concerns that Australian companies face unfair competition from overseas and that some companies would choose to go overseas so that they would gain a competitive advantage over those remaining in Australia. There is also a greater power in this legislation to provide information to the public. The bill proposes to extend the circumstances in which information about actions taken or decisions made under the act can be released to the public. There is also increased scope for information about an offence or contravention to be released to overseas regulatory bodies. That point is similar to the one relating to the internationalisation of the industry. The lack of transparency and of timely information was a major criticism levelled at the TGA, as I indicated earlier, by the ANAO report of the way in which they operate in the complementary health care sector. Obviously, this new power will give the TGA the ability to be perceived as more consumer friendly, more open and more willing to provide information. But, at the same time, it does cause a bit of a concern that some companies could be subject to fairly slanderous revelations that might subsequently be found not to be merited. There have been, as I said, some concerns and criticisms from the industry that this power could be abused. One criticism is that the ability to reveal the identity of drug companies and employees that flout the TGA’s rule does lead to a risk of publicly naming and damaging a person’s reputation before their guilt has been proven. To be outed for misdemeanours, particularly if the charge has not been tried or tested in a court, is a serious concern. It has to be balanced against the very obviously serious matters that we are dealing with. There is also concern about the need for publication of adequate and detailed industry guidelines on when, how and why the different enforcement options will be exercised. The bill is unclear in relation to when the TGA will impose the range of alternative sanctions and penalties. There needs to be more clarity, more certainty, on when a particular road will be chosen by the TGA. Otherwise, there will be a perception of favouritism or victimisation of particular companies if it seems that, in certain circumstances, different modes of prosecution are chosen. There need to be clear and detailed guidelines as to when and how they propose to invoke civil or criminal penalty schemes or other alternative sanctions. As I have said, there are a number in this regime, such as enforceable undertakings and infringement notices. Other concerns conveyed by the industry go to the broader issue of transparency and accountability. The heightened power of the TGA, whilst understandable in the post-Pan environment, is such that there must obviously be some questioning. ASMI, the industry player, made this comment in a submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Commit- tee’s inquiry: ... the tiered fine system would give enormous, unaccountable discretion to the TGA. We know of no precedent for it or anything like it. There must be apprehension as to how the process will operate and about accountability and transparency. The decision in the last day or so to convene this new consultation process is a step in the right direction in allaying very widespread concerns. Many members will have received an array of emails from around the country on this matter. One should not perhaps

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 177 perceive these as representative of Australian society; it is obviously an area where some people have very intense views and are very proactive in putting them to their representatives. The industry players, the people affected from a commercial point of view, have said that they see the decision to bring them into the consultation process, whilst overdue, as a very good outcome and likely to allay some of the concerns. The lack of a right of appeal has also attracted criticism from serious players in the field. When you look at the Senate inquiry into this matter you find that even the department has said that there should be an appeals process. The Labor Party feels this should exist at each stage. There is also the issue of the trans-Tasman agency. The reality is that Australia and New Zealand are moving towards a degree of conformity in this field. The question is how long this new regime will operate—how will it handle the negotiations between the two countries at a later stage, what will the outcomes be et cetera. Again, that is a matter that elicited comment during the Senate inquiry and through the various emails. This is an area in which there has been a perceived need for stronger government interven- tion to protect consumer interests. Essentially, we believe that, on balance, the introduction of a tiered criminal offence scheme does provide options that people might choose. It does not deal with every situation. There are concerns about whether, in a particular circumstance, it is appropriate to go down a particular road. However, another player in the field—Medicines Australia, representing the pharmaceuticals industry—put the balance fairly well when they said: It is not particularly clear from the amendment Bill or the narrative outline provided with the Bill, precisely how the regulator will decide when to pursue a criminal penalty ... there seems to be a degree of discretion available to the TGA which is not good regulatory practice. That industry are not particularly concerned commercially. There are some players in the industry who do have a presence in this field but, on balance, they would have a slightly different interest from the major companies in the complementary medicine field. They also feel there are some dangers in this legislation. We believe that the Senate inquiry certainly drove those home to the government. We also believe that the recent events of going towards some further discussions, some transparency with the industry, gives some enhanced guarantees that the process will not be abused. The opposition supports the legislation. Mr TICEHURST (Dobell) (10.20 am)—The Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 2005 makes amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 to enhance the TGA’s ability to secure better compliance with existing regulatory requirements and to adequately protect public health and safety. The Howard government is determined to respond to deficiencies arising from the limited range of enforcement measures presently available. The amendments provide new alternative enforcement options to enable the TGA to deal more effectively and efficiently with suppliers and manufacturers who may place public health and safety at risk. The government support the rights of Australians to make personal and informed health choices. We also believe that people are entitled to expect that medicines available in our country are of a high standard and safe when used appropriately. We want to be confident of the safety and quality of medications. At the same time, the government understand that it is important that we do not impose unnecessary restrictions on manufacturers and suppliers. Ex- isting options for dealing with breaches of regulatory requirements are restricted to either

MAIN COMMITTEE 178 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 criminal prosecution or administrative sanctions such as withdrawing the sponsor’s or manufacturer’s right to continue marketing or manufacturing therapeutic goods. Resorting to either of these options may not, in some circumstances, be appropriate or achieve the optimal regulatory outcome, given the time and resources taken to prosecute offenders and the possible need to maintain supply of products to the public because of their essential nature or the lack of available substitute products. Monitoring and auditing by the TGA has shown that additional amendments to the act are required to more effectively address continuing failure by other manufacturers to adequately comply with regulatory requirements. The new package of sanctions is built on existing conduct already regulated as an offence under the act. The bill proposes a tiered offences regime for a number of criminal offences under the act so that the level of penalties will reflect the gravity and consequences of a breach of a regulatory requirement. The introduction of the tiered regime of criminal offences is intended to better tailor penalties to criminal conduct so that more serious breaches resulting in, or likely to cause, harm or injury will attract heavier criminal sanctions. The higher tier offences, attracting the higher level of penalty, directly link the prohibited conduct to the adverse consequences resulting from that conduct. Under the bill, penalty levels for some offences are increased to ensure consistency of penalties across the act. The bill also introduces civil penalty provisions for breaches of regulatory requirements under the act. The focus of a civil penalty scheme is generally on the regulation of commercial activity. Civil penalties may be more effective as a deterrent for noncompliance with regulatory requirements by sponsors and manufacturers where noncompliance may be commercially driven, at the expense of public health. Higher penalty levels attach to civil penalties because the higher fines are in most cases designed to offset commercial gains that have been unlawfully obtained. The inclusion of an alternative civil penalties regime, alongside criminal offences, for the same conduct being sanctioned, is a strategy adopted under various other Commonwealth acts. The bill will introduce provisions to enable the secretary to issue infringement notices, in lieu of laying charges for the commission of an offence or applying to the Federal Court for a civil penalty order. This option recognises that taking an alleged offender to court may be time consuming and expensive, particularly where no actual harm or injury has occurred. An infringement notice will set out the particulars of the offence and is intended to give the offender the option of either paying the penalty set out in the notice to expiate the offence or electing to have the matter dealt with by a court. Ms Hall—Mr Deputy Speaker, I was wondering if the member for Dobell might take a question. The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Is the member for Dobell willing to answer a question? Mr TICEHURST—No. The bill will also introduce measures to enable persons to provide enforceable undertakings to address breaches of regulatory requirements as an alternative to the TGA taking enforcement measures or applying administrative sanctions. The undertakings are intended to be an additional option for securing compliance with regulatory requirements where the undertakings are adequate to remedy the breaches. The use of this measure may be more efficient and productive in particular circumstances, such as where a deficiency in a manufacturing process needs to be rectified by a manufacturer whose general manufacturing

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 179 ability is not in question. The use of enforceable undertakings in appropriate situations will ensure that public health and safety is assured while access to therapeutic goods for which the public has a continuing need is maintained. In recognising that pharmaceutical trade is transnational in nature and different steps in the manufacture of therapeutic goods can occur in various countries, it is proposed that the geographical jurisdiction for certain offences be extended. The bill provides for certain offences to extend to conduct by an Australian citizen or an Australian body corporate outside Austra- lia, and to conduct by an Australian resident outside Australia where there is an equivalent offence in the laws of the relevant overseas jurisdiction. The offences that will be extended extraterritorially relate to the making of a false and misleading statement in material, particularly in connection with an application to include therapeutic goods in the register, manufacture, supply, export or import of counterfeit therapeutic goods; the manufacture or supply of tampered goods; and the failure to notify the secretary or the National Manager of the Thera- peutic Goods Administration about the actual or potential tampering with of therapeutic goods. These particular offence provisions have been given extended extraterritorial application in order to ensure that a person who would ordinarily be subject to the laws of Australia, had the conduct occurred within Australia, will be held accountable for the same conduct undertaken while the person is not in Australia on the basis that the conduct, undertaken externally, could result in a significant impact on the health and safety of the Australian community. Where a body corporate commits an offence or contravenes a civil penalty provision under this bill, the executive officer will be deemed to have committed the offence or contravened a civil penalty provision where the executive officer knew that an offence or contravention would occur, or was in a position to influence the body corporate in the commission of the offence or contravention and failed to undertake reasonable steps to prevent the offence or contravention. Companies can only act through its officers. Relevant executive officers will be held accountable for known actions of a company in relation to which they have the power to influence, particularly where that action could place public health and safety at risk. The bill extends the circumstances in which the TGA is authorised to release information it holds in relation to therapeutic goods. The bill specifically permits the public release of information relating to any regulatory decisions and actions taken under the act and regulations. Ms Hall—Mr Deputy Speaker, now that the member for Dobell is further into his speech he might be prepared to accept a question from me in relation to the recommendation of the expert committee on complementary medicines. The DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is the member for Dobell prepared to accept a question? Mr TICEHURST—No, Mr Deputy Speaker. These new provisions are designed to overcome present difficulties and ensure that the TGA can take timely, appropriate and effective action to discourage sponsors and manufacturers from not fully complying with regulatory requirements, particularly when this is driven or influenced by commercial considerations at the expense of public health and safety. The confidence of the community in the safety of therapeutic goods and the reputation of Australia’s industry are of great importance and are something the Australian government is committed to. I am confident that the provisions in the bill represent appropriate measures to protect the interests of both the community and industry, and therefore I commend the bill to the chamber.

MAIN COMMITTEE 180 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

Ms HALL (Shortland) (10.29 am)—At the outset of my speech, I express my disappoint- ment that the member for Dobell did not feel sufficiently confident to answer a question that I directed to him relating to the recommendations of the expert committee on complementary medicines in the health system. Given that he did not speak for even half his allocated time, it would seem to me that he is not across the matter that he was speaking about. I wish to start my contribution by thanking all those hundreds, possibly thousands, of people who emailed me and told me of their concerns about the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 2005—concerns that this legislation is draconian. People are very worried about the implications of the legislation. I also wish to acknowledge that the alternative health industry play a very important role in the provision of health care and health treatments within Austra- lia. As an individual who uses those medications from time to time, I understand their concerns. I also have some concerns about this legislation. Whilst I have those concerns, I also have concerns about some of the issues relating to alternative health care products. I think that the expert committee on complementary medicine in the health system examined this issue very thoroughly. The government have now responded to its recommendations and I would like to see many of its recommendations implemented. But, firstly, I want to concentrate on the bill. It will provide additional enforcement options to enhance the Therapeutic Goods Administration—the TGA—and its ability to secure compliance with the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 so as to adequately protect and maintain Austra- lia’s stringent public health and safety standards regarding therapeutic goods. The bill introduces new penalties to provide alternative sanctions for breaches of varying degrees under the act, and I will concentrate a little more on that in a moment. It ensures that any noncompliance issues and offences can be dealt with efficiently and effectively. New enforcement sanctions are included to provide for alternative sanctions that may be more appropriate in particular circumstances. It also achieves better regulatory outcomes with minimum delay. For that reason, the bill introduces enforcement options, including judicial sanctions. It helps to achieve the objectives of the act, maximise compliance with regulatory requirements, promote the supply of safe and good quality therapeutic goods and maintain public confidence in the supply, manufacturing, import and export of therapeutic goods. This bill is interested in consumer protection and public health and safety, and it ensures proper regulations and access to and quality of therapeutic goods. The bill seeks to ensure that therapeutic goods manufacturers adequately comply with regulatory requirements and, where there is noncompliance, a range of discretionary and enforceable sanctions are available that are similarly available under other Commonwealth legislation. It is proposed that the act be amended to provide greater enforcement options for the TGA in dealing with non-compliance conduct and greater flexibility in managing noncompliance. It may provide a better alternative to current regulatory action, and that may include suspension or cancelling of manufacturing licences or removing goods from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. We on this side of the House broadly support this bill, but we do have some concerns. At the beginning of my contribution I recognised the concerns of many people in the community who rely on therapeutic goods for managing various health problems. One of the concerns that we have is the lack of direction in when and what alternative sanctions may be imposed, and the lack of clear guidelines published by the TGA as to when and how it proposes to in-

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 181 voke civil or criminal penalty schemes. Both schemes, although parallel, are ambiguous in their practical application. This bill is quite complex and confusing. There are no set procedures or directions as to where the wheels of the civil or criminal system will be set in motion. There is far too much discretion. Under the act a company can commit a breach and they may be handed different penalties. So the same breach can be treated differently, and different companies can end up with different kinds of penalties. That, to me, is far too much discretion. You need clarity in laws. You need things to be prescribed in a way where a company or an individual can be aware of the penalty that they will have attributed to their action. It is interesting to note that the TGA’s CEO, Terry Slater, recommended that a set of guidelines on the TGA’s discretionary power regarding its alternative sanctions be published. That is something that should accompany this legislation. People and companies need to know what these discretionary powers are and how they will be implemented. This legislation is very loose in that area. The TGA is also able to enforce any of the alternative sanctions at its discretion. There is some assurance from the TGA that these will be applied in a fair and transparent manner and that all industry players are granted proper access and equity, but the detail and the level of discretion that the TGA has has not been clarified in this bill. Although the power is greater and irrefutable, as outlined in this bill, there is no clarification. It definitely lacks transparency. It definitely lacks accountability. I am really concerned about any legislation the government oversees that falls into the category of lacking those things. This legislation has been described by various people as being draconian. I can understand why: because of its lack of clarity and transparency. It is interesting that Medicines Australia say: It is not particularly clear from the amendment bill or the narrative outline provided with the bill precisely how the regulator will decide when to pursue a criminal penalty ... There seems to be a degree of discretion available to the TGA, which is not good regulatory practice. I emphasise that the government should tighten this up. That concerns me. Another aspect of this legislation that is of a little bit of concern is that the TGA can publicly name a drug company or an employee that they believe flouts the rule. There is always a risk if you are going to publicly name somebody that you are damaging that person’s or company’s reputation. To me it seems that the TGA will be acting as judge and jury. Rather than allowing the legal system to deal with this matter, they are dealing with it in a way where a person is proven guilty right from the start as opposed to being presumed innocent until proven guilty. The government is also seeking to establish a trans-Tasman agency which will provide for a joint regulatory regime with New Zealand. It is important to note that the amended act will only be in effect for a short time, up until July 2006. So we are going through this process at the moment which is putting in place something that is not very transparent, something that I believe is flawed in a number of areas, to address something that I believe is a real issue in the community. I have before me the recommendations of the expert committee that looked at complementary medicines and health, and I would have to say that complementary health is an issue that I have become concerned about in recent times. On 11 October I raised in the House an issue that was of great importance to me because it concerned a constituent in my electorate. This constituent had told me of a very sad scenario about a poor parent and a person who portrayed

MAIN COMMITTEE 182 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 himself as a naturopath. This person had dubious qualifications and his actual registration with the naturopath body had been questioned. I know that that will be discussed and decided in a court of law in a very short period of time. This alternative medicine practitioner was treating the husband of one of my constituents and what we were faced with was a litany of fraud and deceit. This fraud and deceit was hurting not only her but a number of people within the community. He was prescribing medicines to very sick and very vulnerable people within the community, like this lady’s husband. The husband of Mrs Christie of Dudley died in May this year, following a fight with cancer. As a last-ditch effort on behalf of her husband, she was referred to see Paul Perrett. She was given this referral by another person who was suffering from cancer. This person has subsequently died, as has her husband. The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr McMullan)—I interrupt the member for Shortland to ask her to be sure that we do not run into a sub judice problem here if he is actually in court. I suggest she proceed carefully. Ms HALL—I am being careful. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Jenkins—Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: as you are an experienced parlia- mentarian, I am sure you will be careful. Ms HALL—I will be. I thank very much the Deputy Speaker and the member for Scullin. The issue that really concerns me is that the person in question was prescribing medicines that were non-existent and their ingredients could not be traced. How this issue relates to this piece of legislation is this: I do not believe that the legislation we are looking at will actually deal with this problem. I do not see how this legislation will be able to stop situations that exist within communities like mine where you have people with questionable qualifications setting themselves up as naturopaths and then prescribing medications that they portray as being alternative health products—and action is then taken against these people. What I would have liked to see the government do—and I hope the government will do this in the future, and I know that this is in a recommendation that was put to it by the expert committee on complementary health—is ensure that the ingredients in alternative health products meet the requirements that are listed and match what they are supposed to be. I would like to see the government introduce national legislation, so leading the way for the states, that ensures that naturopaths are required to register—have their qualifications noted—and they meet a level of qualification that will ensure they are not able to misrepresent themselves to the public. At the outset of my contribution I said that the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 is in place to protect and maintain Australia’s stringent public health and safety standards regarding therapeutic goods. Whilst this goes some of the way, this legislation does have problems. It does not address issues I deal with on a daily basis. This legislation goes part of the way, putting in place a very stopgap measure that will be in force until July 2006. It will create a lot of pain for people, and I find that worrying. The legislation also does not address the issue of practitioners within the various communities throughout Australia prescribing quite dubious drugs. I believe the government has to come back with legislation that addresses the national registration of natural therapists and people practising in the area of alternative health. Obviously this legislation has been introduced in the wake of the Pan Pharmaceuticals crisis. The bill proposes a wide range of penalties for noncompliance and also increases the sanctions that the TGA is able to impose on discretion. Although the discretionary and trans-

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 183 parency aspects and the accountability issues in this legislation are very important, the TGA has agreed to establish a joint industry-regulator committee, and I see that as an important step towards encouraging not only greater compliance with the law but also greater understanding of the way it operates. In conclusion, I reiterate my concerns. The government has not addressed some of the key recommendations of the Expert Committee on Complementary Medicines in the Health Sys- tem. It is important for the government to do so, and until it does it has only just touched the tip of the iceberg. I also thank those hundreds of people who have contacted me. I appreciate their contacting me and letting me know their feelings and raising with me their concerns about this legislation. Mr JENKINS (Scullin) (10.49 am)—In rising to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 2005, I think we should acknowledge that for many Australians the types of therapeutic goods and substances covered by this legislation form a very important part of what they see as not only the treatment of their illness but more importantly the maintenance of their wellbeing. The bill in particular provides greater powers to the Therapeutic Goods Administration to sanction offenders and provides greater and flexible enforcement options to deal with non-compliant conduct by an individual or company. The stronger powers of the TGA will provide greater protection for consumers by forcing the therapeutic goods industry to observe stricter regulations or face action by the TGA in the form of sanctions and penalties. As has been stated by other speakers on behalf of the opposition, the objective of any legislative and regulatory regime in this area must be to protect consumers and patients that use therapeutic goods. For the sake of this debate, I think it is useful to iterate the definition of ‘therapeutic good’ that is used by the Therapeutic Goods Administration and can be found on the TGA web site. It indicates that a therapeutic good can be broadly defined as a good which is represented in any way to be, or is likely to be taken to be, for therapeutic use. The definition goes on to say that ‘therapeutic use’ means use in or in connection with: preventing, diagnosing, curing or alleviating a disease, ailment, defect or injury; influencing, inhibiting or modifying a physio- logical process; testing the susceptibility of persons to a disease or ailment; influencing, con- trolling or preventing conception; testing for pregnancy; or the replacement or modification of parts of the anatomy. So the definition of ‘therapeutic use’ is fairly broad. I think it is important to talk about those things, because it puts in context the importance placed by many Aus- tralians on these types of goods, articles and substances. This legislation follows an incident in 2003 in which the TGA suspended the licence of Pan Pharmaceuticals for the breach of manufacturing safety and quality standards and what was believed to be the systematic and deliberate manipulation of quality control test data. It led to some 1,600 products being taken out of the market, the biggest recall in Australia’s history. The decision significantly impacted on Pan and other complementary medicine companies. In 2003 we had a piece of legislation which directly followed that incident and which put in place certain measures that are now subject to review, in a legislative sense, by the legislation that we are discussing. Those measures have been touched on earlier in the debate. The response of the government is cause for some concern. This is an area about which, in the past, I have been moved to express my concern about the tardiness of the government in reacting. Going back to 2000, we had the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000.

MAIN COMMITTEE 184 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

The measures in that bill arose from a review of the Therapeutic Goods Administration conducted by KPMG. The government responded to that review in 1997 and took some 2½ years to get around to introducing legislation. The response to the Pan issues, back in 2003, was much swifter, but now, some two and a bit years down the track, we see this legislation, which flows on from further investigation of the Pan incident and further investigation and review— for instance, by the Auditor-General—of the TGA itself. In reviewing this piece of legislation, we should be cognisant of a number of concerns that have been raised. There is concern that there is definitely a problem with transparency in the way the TGA goes about its business. To assist that, there needs to be discussion about the publishing of industry guidelines indicating how the TGA might use the powers that this bill will give it. What the opposition place on the public record is that we believe that the TGA needs to be accountable and consistent in the way in which it applies the act. Through that, we will then gain greater confidence. We see a tendency in this legislation towards the TGA being permitted to be the enforcement agency without reference, for instance, to the Director of Public Prosecutions. That adds a layer of concern, and this greater transparency is required on the TGA’s behalf. We also see that the TGA is responsible for setting in place the framework that is used by an industry that is of considerable size. It is not a large industry but an industry of moment. Many of the companies that are involved are small to medium sized businesses. In the case of Pan, the interesting thing was that it was probably up at the larger end of the range of companies that deal in complementary medicines in the therapeutic goods industry. When we hear of concerns being expressed by parts of the industry that there was insufficient consultation, I think our antennae need to capture that. There is a need for a fuller discussion about the type of consultation that went forward on this legislation. As I said, one of those things that have been cause for concern is that the bill, when enacted, will give a great deal of discretionary power to the TGA. If that is to be the case, it underscores the reasons that we emphasised the need for guidelines to be developed, which can be understood, about the way in which those discretionary powers might be put in place. For instance, there is the fact that the TGA would be allowed in a way to out companies that they believe to be transgressors. That needs to be done with great care because we have a justice system that is based on the need for natural justice. In fact, if these infringement notices are to be given with gay abandon, without reference to guidelines, there would be a lack of confidence in the overall system. I understand the reason that we are going down this path—so that there would be an intermediate step—because, if we are talking about public safety and public awareness, these things need to be considered. But we really need to see, in those cases where infringement notices are placed on a recipient for an alleged breach, that there is an opportunity for some form of independent arbitration on such matters. There has also been discussion about the size and impact of any fines that might be placed and whether they are, as some have suggested, too draconian. That is where we can make comparisons with other similar pieces of legislation, because there may be a lack of understanding. The types of fines that are considered under this legislation are much more readily understood in the context of other legislation and other penalties that are in place. If we are to go forward with this industry, it is no use walking away and saying that this is something which people decide to take in their treatment, because many of these goods are

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 185 low risk and can be self-administered. It is very much about the consumer’s choice. The consumer is making a decision. Therefore, with regard to complementary medicines, when we have a classification of listed medicines, the TGA are assessing the quality and safety of the medicine. They are looking at the processes that are used in manufacture, they are setting guidelines to ensure that that is done in a way which produces the best quality result and they are indicating to the community that they believe these goods are safe. What they are not doing is making any endorsement about the efficacy of the drugs. That is why the confidence required by the community and consumers in these drugs is most important. There needs to be an understanding of the system, that the taking of drugs is at least safe and that it is then for the consumer to make a choice as to whether they believe that the therapeutic good will in fact do what the substance is intended to do. That also requires manufacturers, if they make claims about what the therapeutic goods might do, to keep the information that they base those claims on. In fact, if there is any concern, that can be referred to by the TGA. On behalf of the community, the Therapeutic Goods Administration have to make decisions based on the way in which they apply a risk management approach to the systems that are covered by this piece of legislation and, if they believe that the substances or goods should be used only under medical supervision, that is a requirement. As I said, this is an area in public administration where we need to take great care because we see a phenomenon where consumers, by their choices, have decided they may wish to continue to pursue and use complementary medicines. The government therefore has the responsibility to make sure that that can be done in the safest way possible. We learnt a lot from the Pan Pharmaceuticals incident, and that has made the government much more aware of its requirements. The reviews that have taken place were appropriately based. Whether in fact the outcomes and suggestions of those measures have received the proper recognition in developing has been debated and there are different views on that. We see the bill as a result of all these processes. We see the further development of other measures. The joint trans-Tasman agency proposal, where there will be a joint regulatory regime with New Zealand, will have an effect. We will have a chance to review these matters at that time, and that is appropriate and fortunate. The further development of policies in this area is important. We must characterise the importance of the legislation so that the community can have confidence about the public health and safety standards regarding therapeutic goods and we must recognise that there is a need for ongoing consultation not only with users but also with industry. The government needs to note the extent to which elements of the industry have expressed concern about the degree of consultation or the degree of transparency of processes. Most importantly, when this bill is put into law we must make sure that the TGA develops these definite guidelines that will give surety for all in the application of the new powers that the TGA will be given as a result of this piece of legislation. With those remarks, I indicate my in- principle support of the legislation. As I say, I put the government on notice that this is an area where we will have need for continuing review to ensure that we develop a system that is the most efficient in delivering safe and reliable goods as defined by this act. Ms CORCORAN (Isaacs) (11.06 am)—The purpose of the Therapeutic Goods Amend- ment Bill 2005 is to introduce a range of new sanctions and enforcement options available to the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA—that is, sanctions that the TGA can use in the event that companies breach their obligations that go with registration of their products

MAIN COMMITTEE 186 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 with the TGA. The intention is to improve the TGA’s ability to protect public health and safety. The bill tries to do this by expanding the range of options available to it in the event of standards being breached. It is important to note right at the start that this bill does not introduce new offences to those already existing under present legislation; it simply changes the penalties available to the TGA if offences are committed. Many people are worried about the role of the TGA and I have discovered some confusion concerning what the TGA is all about. Before I talk about this particular bill, I want to put all this into some perspective, and I am indebted to the Par- liamentary Library for their assistance. Therapeutic goods are regulated under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, which is administered by the TGA, which sits in the Department of Health and Ageing. The term ‘therapeutic goods’ covers a range of goods that are used for therapeutic purposes and includes prescription medicines, over-the-counter medicines—cough and cold remedies, for instance—and complementary medicines like vitamin supplements, which are also sometimes called natural health products. All therapeutic goods sold in Australia must be included on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, the ARTG. The TGA is responsible for maintaining this register. Therapeutic goods on the ARTG are regulated according to a risk management approach. This means that the evaluated risk associated with a particular medicine or medicinal ingredi- ent determines the type of assessment process used by the TGA. The concept of risk is based on: ... an assessment of the potential of a product to do harm to those it is intended to help, or to others (such as children) who may come into contact with it—regardless of whether the harm results from following or disregarding the directions for use. Higher risk therapeutic goods and registered medicines, such as those used to treat serious conditions or which need to be used under a doctor’s supervision, are subject to a high level of scrutiny and evaluation by the TGA to determine their quality, safety and efficacy. Lower risk therapeutic goods, listed medicines, are assessed by the TGA for quality and safety but not for efficacy—that is, the TGA does not evaluate listed medicines prior to supply to determine whether or not they are effective. However, manufacturers or distributors are legally required to hold information that substantiates any therapeutic claims they make for these products. This evidence must be provided when requested: for instance, if any concern arises. The Australian system of regulation makes no clear distinction between complementary medicines and other medicines. Rather, complementary medicines are regulated according to the same risk management approach that governs regulation of all other medicines listed on the ARTG. Most complementary medicines on this list are considered to be low risk and are hence registered as listed medicines. According to the TGA, the risk management approach is designed to ‘ensure public health and safety, while at the same time freeing industry from any unnecessary regulatory burden and minimising the cost of medicines regulation’. The TGA also states that as part of this approach, it ‘has developed a constructive partnership with industry’. That contributes to the ‘continued viability of industry by creating confidence in, and acceptance of, Australian therapeutic goods, both at home and overseas’. I will come back to some of those points a little later. In summary, the TGA assesses all therapeutic goods, which includes their manufacture, for safety and quality. Not all therapeutic goods are assessed for

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 187 efficacy: typically, the complementary medicines and over-the-counter medicines fall into this category. I would like to talk for a few minutes about some of the recent events that are relevant to the development of this bill. These events are the Pan Pharmaceuticals recall of a few years ago, the expert committee on complementary medicines which was established as a result of that Pan recall and an audit undertaken recently by the Australian National Audit Office into the regulation of non-prescription medicines by the TGA. We all remember the Pan Pharma- ceuticals recall episode in April 2003. This episode kicked off because a number of people reacted badly after taking Pan’s Travacalm—an antitravel sickness product. The TGA investigated and found problems in the manufacturing and quality control procedures and also evidence of deliberate manipulation of quality control test data. As a result, the TGA suspended Pan’s licence and ordered a recall of all its products. This led to Pan going into voluntary administration and also to a number of companies that supplied Pan being adversely affected. As a result of this episode the government set up an expert committee on complementary medicines. This committee was asked to look at the use and place of complementary medicines in Australia’s health care system. It made a number of recommendations around standards for ingredients used in complementary medicines and evidence that companies be required to hold to substantiate therapeutic claims. The last event I want to record here is a performance audit conducted by the Australian Na- tional Audit Office which resulted in a report issued in December 2004. The audit was into the TGA’s regulation of non-prescription medicines—not of prescription medicines. The overwhelming message that came out of that audit was that, whilst the TGA may well be doing a good job in regulating non-prescription medicines, it is impossible to tell. The ANAO found that systems and procedures were inadequate and lacking in transparency. For instance, the report says: Manufacturers approved by the TGA are subject to regular audit. An audit frequency matrix determines the time to next audit. This is based upon two risk parameters: the products manufactured; and compliance with the Code of GMP— good manufacturing practice— from the previous audit. However, the rationale for assigning audit frequencies for these risk parameters has not been documented, nor supported by a systematic risk analysis. The audit frequency may be varied from that indicated by the risk parameters. However, the reasons for the variation are often not documented, reducing transparency and accountability for these discretionary judgments. Whilst the procedures around an audit program may seem not as important as other procedures, this lack of rigour is indicative of other findings by the ANAO on the TGA. For example, the report also says: The TGA’s regulatory framework is supported by a substantial number of standard operating procedures. However, greater clarity and guidance is required for some key aspects of the TGA’s regulatory functions. There are also some gaps in documented procedures. Decision-making, including reasons for particular action and enforcement, requires more structured documentation, especially when discretionary judgments have been made.

MAIN COMMITTEE 188 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

It goes on: Performance management arrangements are insufficient to support sound management of regulation, and accountability to stakeholders. Performance indicators provide limited insight into the effectiveness of the regulation of non-prescription medicines, and of manufacturer compliance. Transparency to manufacturers and sponsors can be enhanced, both to facilitate manufacturers’ ability to comply with regulatory requirements, and to improve the TGA’s accountability for its actions. The ANAO also found that the TGA has been inadequately resourced for this critical work and consequently has allowed too many important regulatory tasks to fall behind schedule or even off the list completely. This may well explain part, or all, of the problem. Whatever the cause of the problem, we are left with a regulatory body which, at best, does not have the confidence of at least some of its stakeholders—the complementary medicines industry, for instance. This lack of confidence makes it more difficult for the industry to accept the changes proposed in this bill. I said earlier that the TGA claims that it has a constructive partnership with industry and that it contributes to the viability of the industry by helping to create confidence in its products. This might be true of the prescription medicines industry, but there are parts of the complementary medicines industry that will argue with this statement. The attitude of mistrust on the part of some players makes for mistrust by the consumer. I have had talks with a number of manufacturers of complementary medicines, some of them in my electorate, as well as other interested parties. These people are very worried about how this bill will operate. They are worried about the TGA acting in an arbitrary way and without the companies concerned having any comeback if they think they are being unjustly treated. In our discussions it became clear to me that the organisations concerned agreed in principle with what this bill is trying to achieve, which is a better way of dealing with breaches of standards. The real cause of concern which emerged was the lack of confidence in receiving fair treatment from the TGA. I can understand why this worry exists. The report from the ANAO explains why this attitude exists. Some time ago when I had shadow portfolio responsibility for this area I had talks with the TGA about the bill and I expressed the concerns that had been passed on to me by parts of the industry. I suggested that the TGA had a bit of work to do in regaining the confidence of this part of the industry. I also suggested that one way of doing this would be to issue guidelines showing which option the TGA would take when dealing with breaches. I asked whether this had been considered and was somewhat surprised to learn that it had not. I was pleased when the representatives from the TGA undertook to develop a set of guidelines. I have seen what I believe to be a draft of these guidelines and they are very confusing. I was very pleased to read just this week that the TGA is establishing a working group to work with the complementary medicines industry on these guidelines. The complementary medicines industry has not been slow to enlist the support of its cus- tomers in urging rejection of this bill. Most members of parliament will, like me, have been on the receiving end of literally hundreds of emails from people across Australia urging that this bill and other bills to do with the TGA be rejected. There have been basically two campaigns against the TGA bills. The first campaign conducted earlier this year simply urged us to vote down all TGA bills. This first campaign was a most confused business. The perpetra-

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 189 tors of the campaign had convinced people that the cost of their vitamins was going to sky- rocket or, alternatively, they would be taken off the market completely. The message was a confusion of references to Codex, the proposed trans-Tasman treaty, the regulation of therapeutic goods and this bill. Big Brother got a mention too. I made a point of ringing a number of my constituents who forwarded these emails to me to talk about the issue. I was interested to discover that most had simply forwarded the email on because they were alarmed at the thought of the cost of their medicines going up. Once the facts were explained and we had a chance to discuss the issue, most people became quite relaxed about the matter. I am not at all sympathetic with the people promoting this earlier campaign, as it was not based on fact and it used emotive language to frighten people into acting. A campaign like this damages the cause and reputation of the sector. It becomes counterproductive and discourages MPs like me from taking anything said in similar campaigns seriously. In fact, it discourages us from even reading the emails. I challenge the organisers of such future campaigns to ensure that their arguments are based on fact and logic. The more recent email campaign—the one that has been operating over the last few weeks—is a much better example of a good campaign. It is not hysterical and it puts forward decent arguments based on facts. I am sympathetic to the points of this campaign, although I do not agree with the conclusion promoted—that is, that this legislation be voted down. How- ever, the issues raised are real and they need to be addressed. A fair summary of the points being made by the campaigners is that the natural or complementary medicines industry is a small industry and it is less able to sustain heavy financial penalties or the loss of business that an infringement notice might bring than the bigger pharmaceutical industry. The campaigners are concerned that the TGA, which has a reputation of acting arbitrarily, will continue to do so and may even get worse. They argue that the natural health or complementary medicines industry should not be regulated by the TGA. I have some sympathy with those who fear that the TGA will act arbitrarily and in a heavy-handed manner. My sympathy stems from the findings of the ANAO report that I referred to earlier. The findings were that the TGA does not act in a transparent or accountable manner. This is not the same thing as saying the TGA is unfair in its approach, but the old rule of fairness applies to the TGA as well as everybody else—that is, the TGA should not only act properly and fairly but be seen to be doing so. I think the TGA has some way to go in rebuilding its relationship with parts of the industry. As I said earlier, it is good to see the recent announcement that the TGA is establishing a working group to come up with guidelines about these new penalties which will be applied to the complementary medicines sector. I hope this goes some way towards addressing the anxieties of the industry. Despite all the difficulties put forward, I do not buy the argument by the campaigners that the complementary medicines industry should not be regulated by the TGA and that this bill should be voted down. I am supporting this bill for a number of reasons. Firstly, I am very keen to see that our medicines are regulated properly and that those not abiding by the regulations are dealt with appropriately. It is vital that we as consumers have confidence that the medicines we are taking, be they prescription, over-the-counter or natural health products, are manufactured safely. We also need confidence that the makers or sponsors of these medicines are accountable for the claims they make for their products. We have moved way past the snake oil days, and we should not allow ourselves to return there. If a manufacturer has a

MAIN COMMITTEE 190 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 therapeutic claim to make, that manufacturer should be prepared to stand by that claim and not be afraid of having it tested if need be. Secondly, I see the potential for this new regime of penalties to actually address the concerns raised by the complementary medicines industry. If the TGA has some discretion about the penalties to apply in different cases, then account can be taken of the significance of the penalty to the size of the company. I hope this is what happens. I am hopeful that the experiences that the TGA has been through over the last few years, particularly the ANAO report, have led to an improvement in procedures and attitudes within the TGA and an awareness of the need to be seen to be fair as well as actually being fair. Finally, I want to make a couple of points about the place for complementary medicines and natural health products in the health arena. Like most people I have from time to time used complementary medicines, sometimes with good results and sometimes with no result at all. I must also quickly add that I have had similar experiences with over-the-counter medicines and with prescription drugs. Like most people I have a couple of preparations that I swear by. But I have heard people say that such and such ‘cannot be dangerous to health because, after all, it’s natural’—whatever that means. This is clearly an illogical, and even dangerous, attitude. Many plants are poisonous. They are natural in the sense that they grow and are not made in a laboratory somewhere, but they are clearly dangerous to health. The danger that exists with the range of products in use today is that they are not always compatible. The mix of a natural product taken with a prescription medicine may produce unexpected results. I have noticed a reluctance by people to tell their doctor about the complementary medicines they are taking, yet it is important that this information be made available. I think this reluctance comes partly from the attitude that many orthodox medical people have to alternative medicines. They can be quite dismissive of the value of alternative or complementary medicines. This does not stop most people from using alternative medicines but it does stop them from telling their orthodox doctor, for want of a better term, that they are using them. Similarly, natural health practitioners can be very critical of more orthodox medicines. Both sets of practitioners can very intolerant of each other, and this is silly. I often wonder if this mistrust is based on science or is perhaps based on something else, like competition for patients. There is a real and beneficial place for both medicines in the health care arena. The sooner we and they accept this the sooner the divisions and suspicions that exist will start to disappear and we can all benefit from the positives of both worlds. Meanwhile, I look forward to this bill strengthening the regulation of our medicines and making the TGA more effective for the benefit of all users of all the different sorts of medicines. Mr PYNE (Sturt—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) (11.22 am)—in reply—Assuming there are no further speakers on the bill I shall sum up the debate. Can I thank the members of the House who have spoken on this bill: the member for Dobell, from the coalition; the member for Reid, who now has responsibility for therapeutic goods administration matters in the opposition; the members for Shortland and Scullin; and, particularly, the member for Isaacs, who had responsibility for TGA matters until a recent reshuffle in the opposition. The member for Isaacs was the person responsible for this area when the bill was first introduced, and it was she who had arrangements with me at the introduction of the bills. I thank her for the cooperation she showed the government. I also thank the member

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 191 for Reid, who took over responsibility and who has also cooperated closely with the government. This bill had the potential to be misrepresented, as the member for Isaacs touched on, but the opposition approached the matter very sensibly and worked with the government to ensure that we have a good outcome. There are some amendments, which I will move at the consideration in detail stage, which will improve the bill even further. The member for Isaacs made a characteristically useful contribution to the debate and touched on a number of matters to do with the complementary medicines industry which I think would have resonated with most members of the House. A few things that the complementary medicines sector do try to get up in the public domain is that they are David versus Goliath in pharmaceuticals and medicines. Of course, the reality is that their industry is worth about $800 million a year in Australia these days. More than 50 per cent of Australians use complementary medicines, and the amount of money being spent in terms of value on complementary medicines has doubled in the last few years. So they are not exactly David when it comes to the complementary medicine sector and the rest of the sector, but they very much play on that perception in the marketplace. I refer the member for Isaacs to the role that Deloittes has been playing in the implementation of the ANAO report of the Therapeutic Goods Administration. That process has gone a long way down the track. Deloittes and the government are pretty comfortable about the role that the TGA is now playing in terms of their transparency and accountability and some of their procedures. There is a new head of the TGA, David Graham, who replaced Terry Slater upon his retirement. That, of course, always brings a new broom into any organisation. The feedback from the industry from complementary medicines right through to pharmaceuticals is that the TGA is working very well with industry to make sure that there are no hurdles in the path of good medicines being made available to consumers. I was also interested in the comment by the member for Isaacs that the complementary medicine sector say that they should not be regulated by the TGA. I would note that they only ever say that in respect to the domestic market. They certainly want to be regulated by the TGA for their export market, because they find that, when they go overseas to sell their products to Singapore, Malaysia or elsewhere, the TGA mark on their products is an instant entree into those markets. Overseas markets recognise that the TGA is a very thorough and very effi- cacious process. The complementary medicine sector certainly like to be regulated when it comes to their exports. As the old saying goes: ‘You can’t have your cake and eat it too’. That the TGA is required to regulate both domestic and export markets for complementary medicines is just something that the complementary medicine sector will have to live with. In summing up the bill, it amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. It adds new measures to enhance compliance with Australia’s regulatory requirements for therapeutic goods. The act and the bill aim to protect the safety and wellbeing of consumers. The amendments include alternative sanctions to those currently in place. These measures will provide more flexibility to effectively address and deter serious non-compliance with regulatory measures. The new options will overcome the difficulties associated with the limited range of enforceable options that have been available up until now. The current options are limited to criminal prosecution or administrative sanction, such as withdrawing a right to supply or manufacture goods. The TGA really only have two gears—first gear and fifth gear—and this bill tries to introduce a

MAIN COMMITTEE 192 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 number of other gears to give them the opportunity to help the industry before they have to revert to their fifth gear. The new legislation protects not only the consumer but also the reputation and standards of manufacturers and sponsors who operate ethically in the Australian market or as exporters to the international market. Where persons inadvertently breach legislation, most issues may be resolved outside the legal enforcement framework—similar to what occurs at present. It provides necessary measures to improve the regulation of therapeutic goods—in particular, the expanded range of enforcement mechanisms will provide a more flexible and effective approach to securing compliance with a regulatory scheme and deterring noncompliance. The amendments included in the bill represent appropriate measures designed to better protect the interests of both the community and the reputation of industry. The bill provides more flexibility for criminal prosecutions and introduces civil penalties more suited to address and deter corporate noncompliance. The bill establishes a tiered regime of criminal offences intended to better tailor penalties to reflect the consequences to public health and safety of breaches of these regulatory requirements. Hence, breaches that result in harm or injury or are likely to cause harm or injury will attract heavier criminal sanctions. In the case of various tiered offences, the bill allows for alternative verdicts so that a person may be convicted of a lesser offence relating to the same conduct. The bill introduces new measures which allow the regulator and sponsor to deal with minor issues without delay. The bill enables regulations to be made to introduce infringement notices for strict liability offences and for breaches of the new civil penalty regime. It also introduces provisions that enable the TGA to accept enforceable undertakings from a person to remedy breaches or not to engage in future contraventions. In relation to contraventions which attract civil penalties the bill will, through the proposed government amendments, extend the current warrants provisions to enable authorised officers to apply for a warrant to investigate and secure evidence of breaches of civil penalty provisions. Where a person is taken to court for a breach of regulatory requirements it is up to the court to determine whether or not a breach has occurred and, if so, what level of penalty should apply in the circumstances of each case. It is important to remember that these are maximum penalties. This was raised as an issue during industry consultations. We were able to provide assurances to industry that there would be no prospect of a major penalty for a mi- nor breach. Other issues highlighted during industry consultations included a perceived increase in bureaucracy and heavy-handedness. I can assure you there will be no increase in red tape or administration for manufacturers and there will be no costly disruption to the manufacturing process for minor breaches. I can also assure manufacturers and sponsors that if they are complying with the act then they will not be adversely affected by any new sanctions in this bill. I can also assure the therapeutic industry that decisions to pursue a breach of regulatory requirements before a court would not be taken lightly. Where it is proposed to apply to the Federal Court for a penalty order in relation to civil breaches the TGA must seek independent legal advice that there are proper legal grounds for doing so. Where it is proposed that a person be prosecuted, the decision as to whether to proceed with the prosecution will be determined by officers from the DPP.

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 193

The TGA has prepared guidelines to provide general guidance on how various aspects of this bill are proposed to be implemented. The general guidelines cover how proceedings could be initiated before a criminal court or the Federal Court; when enforceable undertakings may be accepted; when infringement notices can be issued; and the use of the media to alert the public about potential risks associated with the use of therapeutic goods. These guidelines have been provided to industry for discussion with the TGA. Overall, the amendments will allow the regulator to better calibrate its response depending on the severity of the breach while allowing for appropriate checks and balances. The bill will benefit industry by ensuring greater consumer confidence, and the public can be assured that there are real deterrents to poor and unsafe manufacturing behaviour and that the regulator can act swiftly and appropriately. Most importantly, the bill completes the suite of responses to the Pan Pharmaceuticals crisis, which occurred a couple of years ago in Australia. I am certain that the consumer and, in time, the industry will come to see this is an important step in restoring confidence in the complementary medicine sector and the pharmacy industry generally. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. Mr PYNE (Sturt—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) (11.33 am)—by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and I move government amendments (1) to (6): (1) Schedule 1, item 131, page 93 (lines 25 and 26), omit “(within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition of that expression)”, substitute “in respect of an offence against this Act, in respect of a contravention of a civil penalty provision or in respect of both”. (2) Schedule 1, item 131, page 93 (after line 26), at the end of the item, add: Note: The heading to section 47 is altered by adding at the end “and civil penalty provisions”. (3) Schedule 1, item 132, page 93 (lines 28 and 29), omit “(within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition of that expression)”, substitute “in respect of an offence against this Act, in respect of a contravention of a civil penalty provision or in respect of both”. (4) Schedule 1, items 133 to 135, page 93 (line 30) to page 95 (line 13), omit the items, substitute: 133 Paragraph 47(4)(b) Omit all the words after “destruction,”, substitute: or its use: (i) in committing, continuing or repeating an offence against this Act; or (ii) in committing, continuing or repeating a contravention of a civil penalty provision; (5) Schedule 1, item 136, page 95 (lines 15 and 16), omit “(within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition of that expression)”, substitute “in respect of an offence against this Act, in respect of a contravention of a civil penalty provision or in respect of both”. (6) Schedule 1, items 138 to 140, page 95 (line 19) to page 96 (line 30), omit the items, substitute:

MAIN COMMITTEE 194 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

138 After paragraph 48J(2)(b) Insert: or (c) for the purposes of an investigation as to whether a civil penalty provision has been contravened; or (d) to enable evidence of a contravention of a civil penalty provision to be secured for the purposes of civil proceedings; 139 At the end of subsection 50(2) Add “in respect of an offence against this Act, in respect of a contravention of a civil penalty provision or in respect of both”. Note: The headings to sections 50 and 51 are altered by inserting “and civil penalty provision” after “Offence”. The purpose of these amendments is to remove the requirement for the Therapeutic Goods Administration to seek two different warrants on different days for investigations of breaches that would potentially attract civil penalties and for breaches that would attract criminal penalties and to roll those into one warrant so that, if an investigative officer from the TGA feels the need to seek a warrant for a particularly premises, the evidence that they collect under that warrant could be used for both civil and criminal proceedings. That is supported by the opposition, as I understand it—in fact, it was suggested by the shadow minister responsible, the member for Reid—and by the industry. The government feels that these are good changes because they streamline the bill and establish clarity. I commend them to the House. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House with amendments. COMMITTEES Environment and Heritage Committee Report Debate resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Barresi: That the House take note of the report. Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (11.35 am)—It is a great privilege for me to stand up here today and report on the sustainable cities inquiry, which was conducted with a bipartisan approach by the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal government. Mr Martin Ferguson—What about the National Party? Mr WOOD—Of course the National Party, too. Unfortunately, we had the Greens and Democrats represented. I would like to acknowledge the former chair, the member for Dunkley, for his role; the current chair, the member for Moore; and the deputy chair, the member for Throsby. One of the reasons for my actually entering politics was to place more emphasis on the environment. The other major issue which we have been looking at is terrorism. You may be wondering where the connection is. One is protecting the people and the other one is protecting the fantastic landscape of this country. Also, thirdly, it is supporting my local community in La Trobe. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage responsible for producing the Sustainable cities report, I would like to take this op-

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 195 portunity to outline specific benefits that I believe will affect not only my constituents in La Trobe but the entire nation. In fact, there were 32 recommendations—and, as I said before, there was a bipartisan approach—on areas including transport, planning, water, energy and building design and management. Considering that La Trobe is one of the fastest growing electorates in this country, the building design is vitally important, as of course is transport. I would like to go through several of the recommendations. Recommendation 1 is: ... that the Australian Government: • establish an Australian Sustainability Charter that sets key national targets across a number of areas, including water, transport, energy, building design and planning. The committee also encourages: ... a Council of Australian Governments agreement to the charter and its key targets. This is the approach we need. We need a national approach with the Australian government and the state governments all on board with local councils. Recommendation 2 is: ... that all new relevant Australian Government policy proposals be evaluated as to whether they would impact on urban sustainability and if so, be assessed against the Australian Sustainability Charter and the COAG agreed sustainability targets. Recommendation 3 is the establishment of: ... an independent Australian Sustainability Commission. This was highly recommended by the various experts in their fields who appeared before the sustainable cities inquiry. This will explore the idea of initiative payments to states and territories for meeting agreed sustainability targets. The concept of the national sustainability commission has been considered by many organisations to drive sustainability and work with governments through their decision-making processes. Recommendation 6 is that: ... the Australian Government significantly boost its funding commitment for public transport systems, particularly light and heavy rail, in the major cities. On that notion there is an argument out there that public transport is a state issue, especially trains. My concern with that is that we need to have policies and legislation in place which help all of Australia. In my electorate of La Trobe I have put forward a notion that we need the duplication of the Belgrave train line from Ferntree Gully to Belgrave. It seems quite crazy in this age that commuters have to wait up to 15 minutes for a train to come from the other direction. I have also called for a third line to go from Box Hill to Ringwood train station. The reason is that we would have more express trains and therefore commuters would get home quicker and be able to spend more time with their families. It would also save the environment, with fewer cars on the road. I have actually put this to our state Labor government, and so far they are yet to get back to me. In the meantime I strongly urge that the government which I am part of look at this, because this is vitally important to the future of our country. The committee also visited Perth’s city trials of hydrogen powered buses. This is a fantastic initiative where the company involved is working with other bus companies around the world. On a daily basis they pass on information to each other with regard to the outcome: how to

MAIN COMMITTEE 196 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 improve. I strongly suggest that in the years to come we should aim to remove from the roads more diesel trucks and cars using petrol. The trial of renewable energies to power public transport began in 2004 and Perth is one of the first to trial hydrogen fuel cell buses in the world. These buses create no pollution, as the fuel cell uses hydrogen and oxygen to create electricity. Currently, it is not financially viable for all of these buses to run on fuel cells. However, as the price of diesel and petrol continue to rise, there may be a trend towards these fuel cells which, when mass produced, will become less costly. Using hydrogen fuel cells as an alternative to petrol and diesel will have an impact on the current level of pollution. Rec- ommendation 7 is that: … the provision of Australian Government transport infrastructure funds include provision of funding specifically for sustainable public transport infrastructure for suburbs and developments on the outer fringes of our cities. As I stated before, my electorate of La Trobe is considered to be on the fringe of Melbourne. Areas such as Berwick, Beaconsfield and Officer are experiencing extreme growth in the second fastest growth corridor in Australia. That reminds me of the importance of the Pakenham train line and that, again, we need major upgrading to ensure that the outer eastern commuters have the fastest, safest and best means of transport when travelling to and from the city. Ac- cess to public transport in this fringe area is particularly crucial, as roughly 100 families are moving into this area per week. At present, the lack of public transport increases the isolation felt in fringe suburbs not only by families living in those areas but also by workers contributing to the development of these suburbs. The south-east growth corridor will benefit greatly from this commitment to sustainable public transport and infrastructure. The Commonwealth has committed $11.8 billion to AusLink and, as I said before, I would also like to see AusLink look at urban transport in the future. Current fringe benefits tax laws are encouraging people to use their cars rather than alternative forms of transport. If these concessions were removed, these funds could be channelled into improving our public transport system. Bicycle New South Wales say that more than $750 million is spent on subsidising car use. In addition, the reduced tariff on improved four- wheel drives is not only helping farmers but also contributing to 20 per cent of new car sales, with a tariff on four-wheel drives 10 per cent lower than other imported cars. This provides an incentive to purchase the least efficient vehicles on the market. Recommendation 8 is that: … the Australian Government review the current FBT concessions for car use with a view to removing incentives for greater car use and extending incentives to other modes of transport. The current level of car use is having a negative effect on our environment with the level of pollution that is created every day. The committee is a strong believer in encouraging Austra- lians to reduce the frequency of car use and to increase the use of alternative modes of transportation. The current rise in fuel costs is becoming an incentive for public transport use. The use of public transport in the long term is one recommendation that will have lasting effects on our environment and the community. The recommendation to review fringe benefits tax concessions for company cars and the rise in tariffs on four-wheel drive vehicles have come under some scrutiny. These high-polluting vehicles are contributing to the current levels of pollution, which could be curbed. The committee will review these concessions as a means of encouraging increased public transport use. As I said before, for the people in La Trobe, raising tariffs on four-wheel drive vehicles and reviewing FBT concessions to boost public trans-

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 197 port take-up cannot have the same effect as a local transport system which is inefficient, causing people to rely on cars. I refer to recommendation 12, which states: The committee recommends that COAG— the Council of Australian Governments— as part of the National Water Initiative, fund an education campaign educating the public about the benefits, economics and safety of using recycled water. This is one of our country’s greatest issues. Australia as a nation has experienced a water crisis. As a country, we are more aware than ever before of our precious water supply. Australia’s water consumption per head is the world’s highest, which seems quite unbelievable. The committee heard that Australia’s management of water has been wasteful, unsustainable and environmentally irresponsible. Australia needs an integrated solution to our water use crisis involving a more efficient use of water, recycling of wastewater, better harvesting of run-off and, in some cases, desalination. The National Water Initiative is addressing the issues through expansion of water trading, better water planning and more efficient management of water in urban areas by, for example, recycling stormwater—an obvious solution. A more environmentally conscious Australia—and this includes every person in my electorate of La Trobe—can have a real impact on the conservation and management of our water resources. The committee’s recommendations are thorough and are a firm commitment to leading Aus- tralia into an environmentally conscious, responsible and sustainable future. I refer to recommendation 21, which states: The committee recommends that the Department of the Environment and Heritage and the Australian Building Codes Board work with industry groups to raise awareness among builders, architects and developers of the economic and environmental benefits of sustainable building practices ... As La Trobe’s south-east growth corridor population is growing so dramatically, the concept of building with recycled materials is crucial to this area. In addition, the use of solar panels on rooftops is being encouraged through various rebates. Delfin Lend Lease has designed its residential communities with solar orientation to aid home cooling and heating. I have visited the Delfin Lend Lease estate in Pakenham, which is part of my electorate, and I commend Delfin Lend Lease on its environmental decisions. Also, the first home buyers grant increase to $10,000 is for building environmentally friendly houses, so locals will be living in houses which use the least amount of energy. This will help in respect of the growth corridor for many years to come. Finally, while reports like this are often tabled in parliament, if action is not taken on this report this great work by the committee and, in particular, those who reported to the committee will be wasted. I commend the committee’s report to the House and ask that this report be actioned. Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (Batman) (11.47 am)—It is with some pleasure that I address the Main Committee this morning in support of the recommendations of the report of August 2005 by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage entitled Sustainable cities. In doing so, it is important that I remind the Main Committee that this report is the product of an area where some of the real grunt work of the parliament is done. When someone comes to Parliament House for a visit, they complain from time to time that not many people are actually sitting in the House of Representatives chamber. But the

MAIN COMMITTEE 198 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 truth is they underestimate the importance of our committee structure. Today’s report, which has had cross-party support, reflects the importance of the committee structure of the House of Representatives and also, I dare say, the importance of the Senate’s committee structure. I want to say that, from the opposition’s point of view, this report is not just about major capital cities such as Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne. It is also about the key provincial cities of Australia, places such as the twin cities of Albury and Wodonga, Geelong, Newcastle, Wollongong and Townsville. In that context, when I actually looked at the committee’s membership during the 40th and 41st parliaments, I was surprised to see, given the importance of key cities such as Mildura and Gladstone, that in both parliaments The Nationals chose not to serve on this committee. That nonmembership of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage is an indictment of The Nationals. As someone who previously had responsibility for regional development, transport and infrastructure, I understand the importance of these provincial cities, so my remarks this morning are focused not just on our key capital cities but also on our major provincial cities, which more and more are becoming focuses of economic activity around Australia. Just think, for example, of the importance to our export sector of Karratha in the north-west of Western Aus- tralia, which I had occasion to visit recently. The proposed fifth gas train represents an investment in Australia of $2 billion. The wealth that is actually being achieved for Australia by exporting iron ore, gas and salt out of a place such as Karratha speaks for how important these provincial cities are nationally. In terms of Australia’s future, the report is correct: it is about time that we, as an Australian government, gave more attention to the importance of urbanisation in Australia. As someone who grew up in the western suburbs of Sydney, I have seen the importance given by previous Labor governments to the outer suburbs of our cities. I can think back to the Whitlam government. From living in the western suburbs of Sydney, I know about such basic issues as putting the sewerage on. The Westmead Hospital is a tribute to the Whitlam Labor government. We in the western suburbs of Sydney benefited from a bread-and-butter point of view with respect to these government programs. I think of the Better Cities Program of the Hawke and Keating governments when Brian Howe was the minister. From the western suburbs of Sydney we used to have to go to Par- ramatta, go into Granville and change trains to go out on the Penrith line. Under Better Cities we took out that requirement and there is now continuous rail access from the Liverpool line through to the Penrith line. From my seat in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, I can see the effects of the Better Cities Program. There is the extension of the tramline down Plenty Road to Bundoora past La Trobe University, which is important for our young people. When you go down the Burwood Highway, you can see the extension of the tramlines—all done by Austra- lian governments. For those reasons, I think the whole Australian community has to take this report seriously. This report gives us, as a national parliament, a unique opportunity to take up some of the challenges confronting Australia at the moment, with over 80 per cent of the Aus- tralian population living in our cities. It gives Australia, one of the most urbanised countries in the world, an opportunity to start thinking seriously about the issue of sustainability. Australia as a country which is so highly urbanised has to start fronting up to this challenge because we have to invest in making our cities more sustainable. It is about a vibrant and healthy community. It is also about equity. I represent a seat that I suppose, as a fairly inner

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 199 city seat, is quite well off in terms of access to public transport. But I think about the areas where I grew up in Western Sydney and I think about the suburbs even further west of Guild- ford in the Parramatta municipality. The inadequacy of public transport in some of these outer suburbs of our cities is an equity issue. I go into the centre of Sydney and I stay in a hotel. I talk to the domestic staff who make my bed and clean up after me. They get a gross wage of about $490 per week for working a Monday to Friday day shift of 38 hours per week. When you talk to them they tell you they leave home at about a quarter to six in the morning to catch the train from Penrith to the city to clean up after visiting politicians, businesspeople et cetera. They are reliant on public transport. It is an equity issue because out of that gross wage of about $490 per week, because of the distance travelled because they cannot afford to live in the inner suburbs, they are buying a weekly rail ticket for $40 or $50 and also spending an hour-and-a-half or two hours either way to get to and from work. This is not just about the quality of our environment; it is also about equity. It goes to the importance also of access to transport for the purposes of being able to access employment opportunities and training and education. That is why, in the context of where I grew up in Western Sydney, the University of Western Sydney was so important. It actually made education accessible. It might not be one of the sandstone universities and seen as one of the prime opportunities of life in our capital cities but it is an important institution that gives young people from Western Sydney access to education. There are also accessibility issues in terms of getting to some of those campuses in Western Sydney. I think it is about time that we as a nation accepted that, in terms of our cities, our current lifestyle is unsustainable. If we are going to make progress on this front, we also have to accept that some of the shifting of policy responsibilities between local, state and the Common- wealth government has to stop. I think urban transport is a joint responsibility of all levels of government. As a previous shadow minister for transport, I can assure the parliament that our policy reflects the fact that the Commonwealth ought to also be involved in the provision of public transport. For example, one of the recommendations of the report was that we change the criteria for the purposes of the use of Roads to Recovery funding to enable metropolitan councils to use that Commonwealth funding for public transport purposes. Why should it be specifically confined to road transport? Mr Turnbull—And bicycles. Mr MARTIN FERGUSON—And also, as is currently provided for, for improving bicycle tracks. That is currently one of the provisions of the Roads to Recovery program. So you can broaden access for councils making the decisions about how this Roads to Recovery money can be spent. For example, it can be important for roads in the seat of Hinkler, represented by Mr Neville. Alternatively, in the metropolitan area of Melbourne, the Melbourne City Council might decide that, to improve transport, spending some of that money on public transport facilities is far more important as a priority than spending it on roads, bicycle tracks or footpaths. They are decisions we should give local government the responsibility to front up to because, in the end, they are accountable to the local community for how their scarce public money is spent. When we think about per capita use of energy, gas emissions and water consumption, Aus- tralia is among the highest in the world. Our material consumption per capita is the highest of all developed countries, and waste per capita is second only to the US—and that is despite the

MAIN COMMITTEE 200 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 fact that we think we are actually pretty good at recycling. We have room to make further progress, because I think we have to accept as a result of this report that not all growth is sustainable. That is the challenge to Australia: how do we come to terms with our desire to enlarge the economic cake, achieve a higher level of economic growth and create even better well-paying jobs demanding an even higher skilling of the Australian work force but, at the same time, ensure that growth in our cities is sustainable? This report gives the Australian community and this parliament a chance to focus on some of those challenges. That is why I also want to stress, as the report says, that sustainability is not just about caring for the environment. It is also about social equity and political participation. Sustainable practices include conservation of our urban green zones; efficient use of energy, including renewable resources; water management; and the minimisation of domestic and industrial waste. It is one of the challenges that we as a nation have to confront sooner rather than later. We also have to accept that by improving the sustainability of our cities we are going to benefit 80 per cent of Australia’s population. That is not a bad policy mix to pursue. Thinking in our short-term political horizons from time to time, we think from election to election. To start doing something about the sustainability of our cities you are delivering to the voting public benefits to 80 per cent of the Australian community, so all political parties ought to take this report seriously. It is interesting to note that it is going to get worse, because most of the population growth—some 64 per cent in the 2002-03 period—is in the cities. In terms of the growth of the Australian population, the only competing area is, frankly, in our Indigenous communities in the northern area of Australia, which is going to be exceptionally important to the resources sector in the future. That is going to be the source of the work force, training and the opportunities for meeting our export challenges in the future. Our cities currently house 12.7 million people, or two-thirds of the population. That urban growth is now affecting not only the environment, health and the economy but also the cost of doing business. We have to accept that urban congestion is a barrier to efficiency in industry in Australia at the moment. I can think, for example, of the huge benefits that are going to be achieved in Western Syd- ney from the joint partnership between the New South Wales government and the Common- wealth government just by building the Western Sydney Orbital. That is a major national highway achievement. If I remember correctly, it takes out about 55 sets of traffic lights. Think of the reduction in the wear and tear and the cost of doing business—moving freight, moving people—that is going to be achieved with that simple piece of infrastructure. Every- one in the Australian community is going to benefit, especially business. These are practical examples of where governments can put their heads together and cooperate rather than run campaigns about whose responsibility it is, as occurs in the lead-up to a state or federal election. These COAG processes, moving from portfolio to portfolio, have to be pursued more rigorously, rather than just standing up and saying it is the states’ responsibility or the Com- monwealth’s responsibility. Similarly, the report properly points to the fact that, not just in terms of the cost of doing business, urban environments are contributing to key health problems—obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and respiratory illness. One of the biggest problems we as a community have is our ever-burdening health budget. The indirect health costs caused, for example, by physical inactivity are estimated to be $377 million a year. If we can get our cities right, then

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 201 we can actually make a big statement about how we can improve our health. In turn, that would be a saving to the Commonwealth budget, which would mean that we could actually spend those taxpayers’ dollars on other things. I am pleased to say, for a variety of reasons, that this report represents the work of the committee structure. It is a statement which has the bipartisan support of all political parties of the need for us as a community to get serious about these issues. As I have said, public transport is an issue of sustainability. I very much support the report’s recommendations, including how we accelerate the uptake of renewable energy. We have to do this because our ever-increasing demand for energy is putting further serious demands on our baseload energy capacity. Some big questions have to be confronted in the foreseeable future about that baseload energy capacity on the east coast of Australia because of the growth of our cities. The increasing requirement, in the minds of people, for airconditioners creates baseload energy problems in Sydney and Melbourne each summer. We need to think about some of the renewable energy issues. The opposition very much embrace the recommendations of this report, including full and proper consideration of an independent Australian sustainability commission and charter. We think that is worthy of consideration. We do not have to tick off on all these recommendations at the moment, but we have to have an open mind and be seriously willing to debate them and consider how we go forward. In some ways, I think we should be guaranteeing that this report is referred for proper consideration to the joint Commonwealth-state ministerial council, including representatives of local government, and that they be required as part of their work to think about these recommendations and to consider how these recommendations can be implemented. I commend the report to the House. Miss JACKIE KELLY (Lindsay) (12.02 pm)—I rise to speak on the report of the Stand- ing Committee on Environment and Heritage entitled Sustainable cities. I would like to give credit to the member for Dunkley, the original chair of the committee. In my role as Parlia- mentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, I was given responsibility for outer metropolitan areas and I, together with a number of government backbenchers who represented seats in those outer metropolitan areas, looked at the various issues that we seemed to be being short- changed on. If it was a rural program and the benefit was to go to a rural area, then we would not get it. If it was an urban program and the benefit was to go to an urban area, then we were considered to be rural. There was this belt of population exploding around our major urban centres where the housing had just gone in and the services were left to follow. The standard of living and the needs of people were quite different from either the urban or regional areas. I remember the member for Dunkley being a very keen contributor to that group. Out of that group, this topic, the subject of this report, was referred to his committee and he took it up with gusto, and the member for Moore, Mal Washer, has continued his work. That is one of the reasons why, on my return to the back bench, I was very keen to participate in this inquiry into sustainable cities and to have some input into the areas the committee was addressing. The inquiry was wide ranging, covering transport, roads, social isolation, urban planning, water—all of the things that the outer metropolitan areas have largely discussed. My comments will largely be Sydney-centric, given that it is leading the charge. It is a city of four million people and that is expected to double by 2050. We lead the way in a number of challenges that we have to deal with, as the member for Batman has outlined. No doubt Mel-

MAIN COMMITTEE 202 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 bourne, Brisbane and Perth can follow in Sydney’s footsteps and hopefully not make some of the same mistakes by better coordinating their urban planning. We are already seeing evidence of that in Perth with their grip on the water crisis and also their use of hydrogen buses in their public transport system. As to the committee’s recommendations for a sustainability commission and a sustainability charter—and I love the fact that we are going to include national competition payments—a certain amount of work has to be done by COAG. As a federal government, we must deal with each of the states equally. If a state has been active by putting in outer metropolitan rail transport and road infrastructure and has kept pace with things, quite naturally it is not going to get as much federal assistance as somewhere like Sydney. The member for Batman mentioned the Western Sydney Orbital. The Western Sydney Or- bital will have 17 interchanges. The local roads that have been upgraded through federal government funding to attach those interchanges to what is essentially a national highway are a disgrace. Those roads should have been upgraded out of the state roads budget and not as part of national highway funding. But there have been decades of neglect. Both Labor and Liberal state governments have not put in the road infrastructure in the areas of Sydney that people have moved to. We are now left with a federal highway being used as an excuse to suddenly put in all of these local roads. There needs to be better planning. When we undertake urban design we need to look seriously at where the footpaths are. In my own area there are very limited footpaths. When I visit the seat of the honourable member for Wentworth I find beautiful footpaths and wonderful areas to exercise. In my area there are new housing subdivisions. Councils will take the money from the developers for the footpaths on the basis that, when the houses and the community are established, they will supposedly put the footpaths in. I do not know where the money goes but the footpaths are not there. We have people exercising on the road and the elderly walking on the road. Years later there are still no footpaths, and we wonder why we are dealing with obesity and social isolation in our outer suburbs. All of these things have knock-on effects, such as for bikeways. I highlight recommendation 5, which calls for the federal Roads to Recovery program to look at alternative ways of connecting people—such as rail, buses and footpaths. Speaking of buses, I endorse the reference by the member for Batman to this being an equity of access issue. In Sydney the private bus companies are left to operate on very non-profitable lines due to market failure in outer Western Sydney, whereas the very profitable lines within the inner city are all run by public bus companies. Who is pocketing the change? I think government has an obligation to run buses over non-profitable lines and provide a service to citizens where the private sector has completely failed. When you build up sufficient passengers and sufficient usage, the private sector may then move into what may be a profitable area. But so far both the government bus system and the private sector have deserted Western Sydney. We have no rail. The Parramatta to Epping line of the rail link has been dropped. There are no plans for any rail to link Penrith with Campbelltown or any ring-rail system around Sydney. The ideal thing in the rail system of most large cities is to have concentric rings of train services, with a star cross through the centre, so that you can make your way across the city either by going around the outer ring or by coming down in a zigzag way off various lines and changing at various stations. The western suburbs line is overcrowded, un-

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 203 derserviced and is losing passengers in droves. When they do not take the train, they will take the car and we are left with a very congested M4. If you think the Western Sydney Orbital is going to be a salvation, it will not be. I guarantee that it will be choked the minute it opens. It will not solve many of our urban congestion problems. I am sure that the minute it opens one lane will be closed while they build the third lane. We always seem to be behind the eight ball in these things. We need to look at reducing transport needs. Things such as working from home and shopping on the internet can reduce road usage. We could stagger work times to address peak-hour congestion going into the city. Our workplace relations bill will certainly help in this regard. We could have shifts starting at 8, 9 and 10 am and finishing at 4, 5 and 6 pm. We can stretch out our use of the huge roads infrastructure in Sydney by employers being sensible about it. Instead of having our roads completely choked for a couple of hours a day, we can spread that patronage over four or five hours, as people will have varying start and finish times. I want to put on the record that I am not advocating that we put on more FBT. Philosophi- cally, I feel that we should not really have FBT at all. It is incredibly expensive for businesses to administer and it is a high cost that is passed on to consumers. There are better ways of col- lecting tax than FBT. I support recommendations 8 and 9, which will influence people’s fuel usage and choice of vehicle. With regard to four-wheel drives, I urge car companies to come up with a people mover that will accommodate a mum, two kids and the friends and hangers- on. Even if we put up the price of four-wheel drives, mums are still going to buy them because they can fit the gang inside. With the Ford Territory, Ford has come up with a mums’ vehicle. Instead of catering to male tastes, car manufacturers should start delivering ‘kiddy people movers’ so that we can move away from four-wheel drives. But no matter how high you drive the price of four-wheel drives, they will stay on urban roads for as long as mums have to do the bus route—for as long as we do not have public transport that is accessible for prams and kiddies and for picking up this child, that friend, this mate and so forth. We need better designed cars that meet our needs. I think we need more female car designers. Ms Vamvakinou interjecting— Miss JACKIE KELLY—That’s right—we need a tissue box in the middle! A lot of the recommendations are about liveability. My area—Penrith, in Western Sydney—has a population of 140,000 people. We are not exactly rural. All the trees along the road have been planted by the council. It is a built environment and we want it to be liveable, we want it to be handy and we want it to work, so we need urban design. I recommend that everyone have a look at the Swedish model, which is outlined at page 152 of this report. The report says: A vision for sustainability must engage Australians and have meaning—it must close the gap between policy makers and the lived reality of Australians who will, ultimately, be the practitioners of sustainability principles. And it is about the lived reality. My local council is a small council of 120,000 people and it is dealing with the Mirvacs, Meritons and Lend Leases of the world. It used to be that the council was the be-all and end-all—it had huge resources. To get a traffic report, an environment report, a water run-off report or an impact statement on what a development would mean, you used to go to the council. Today the developers do that and fund that. That may be the council’s choice, but they are severely lacking in resources and there is a disparity in size in terms of the urban planning they are doing. I have very rarely seen councils win against the re-

MAIN COMMITTEE 204 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 sources of those types of companies when it ends up in the Land and Environment Court and those reports can be produced. We really need a national statement through which we can direct councils—by allocating funding and encouraging extra funding—to go along with planning principles that allow for public transport and green space and enable people to raise children in a liveable environment rather than in social isolation. We have a system that has stacked in as many residents as is physically possible—in the narrowest roads and with the least amount of green space possible—for the greatest profit to those who have the task of filling the need for more than 600,000 new homes in Sydney over the next 20 years. We have phenomenal population growth in Sydney and we do have to house people, but it does not have to be in two-bedroom, walk-up, three-storey apartments next to a railway line. We can offer people something better. There are great examples—such as Christie Walk and other developments—that this committee visited and spoke to developers about. There are some great developments which have created liveable areas. This sustainability commission is the overarching body which will consider how these individual developments will interrelate. You may have a world’s best practice development sitting, say, on the ADI site, but how does that impact on the rest of the region? When those houses are established the people, and everyone surrounding them, will pour onto the M4 to congest it even further as they go into the city for work. They will be fighting for the increasingly limited number of jobs that are local and close by. They will take up the public transport system and create more run-off and other issues for the local area. So though the development may be world’s best practice within its own region we really have to look at, and work through, how it impacts on the area of Western Sydney and the outer metropolitan area as a whole. I am on the record, on a number of occasions, as being very against recycled water. I think my quote was that it was ‘play on poo’. I feel our recreational areas should not be watered with recycled water. After working on this committee I am happy to change my view on that. I strongly urge those who have the opinion that I had—if you are worried about your children falling over and grazing themselves on playing surfaces—to look at Hawkesbury City Coun- cil. That council has been using recycled water in a potable way for some time. A major government campaign to change the ignorance of people like me, and our attitudes to recycled water, is really needed in Australia. If my attitude can be changed after working on this committee, I am sure that with a serious effort we can manage to change the community’s attitude. Then we can move forward with recycled water, which does raise some issues in people’s minds as to how it should be used. I commend the report to the House. It contains pretty much everything that I have ever wanted to say on urban planning in Sydney and it is something I have made one of my key priorities as a representative of those areas. It is a great report. It is bipartisan. Let us see this sustainability charter and commission established as soon as possible. Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith) (12.17 pm)—I join with other honourable members in welcoming the release of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage entitled Sustainable cities and in confirming what I think is a very encouraging degree of unanimity around the House for both the recommendations and the bipartisan nature in which the report reached its conclusions and was supported. I certainly

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 205 commend the chair, the member for Moore, and in particular the deputy chair, the member for Throsby, for the work that they have done. If the expression ‘sustainable cities’ is going to mean anything, those cities will need to be healthy cities. They will need to be cities which connect people to their local communities. They will need to be cities which provide people with comfortable homes, safe streets, safe and accessible transport, and good walking and cycling facilities. They should provide parks for young people, playgrounds and other entertainment areas, and schools that are healthy and sustainable. They should be alive with native birds and other animals. They should have clean air and they should have clean water. They should have low rates of asthma and obesity and they should encourage a good, positive mental attitude. They should provide healthy jobs and healthy workplaces. Sustainable cities can do all those things and should do all those things. It would be one of the tasks of national government, particularly now that the Sustainable cities report is out there, to take up those recommendations and to pursue the vision of a sustainable city that I have just summarised. There is much support for this report. I understand that last night over 1,000 people attended a meeting in Sydney to discuss issues raised in the report. I think the member for Wen- tworth will probably speak to that when he rises. I understand that he was there. Professor Peter Newman, the New South Wales Sustainability Commissioner, who spoke at the meeting last night, wrote in today’s Sydney Morning Herald about the most surprising recommendation that this report made—that the government should not only fund urban transport but should give special consideration to passenger rail, especially in the outer areas of cities where car dependence has reached its limits. In the bipartisan spirit with which this report is being brought down, it is probably as important to concentrate on what ought to happen and on what responsibilities the federal government may choose to take up as it is to concentrate on what should have happened in the past and on whatever shortcomings, real or imagined, state governments and local authorities may have had. There is no question whatsoever—I think all members would agree—that the challenges are too great for any one level of government to deal with in relation to sustainable cities. Professor Newman says: If the next million people to arrive in Sydney were located next to quality rail options, then the city would save about $24 billion in land opportunity costs, $14 billion in infrastructure costs and $4 billion to $6 billion in driving costs per year. As he points out—and I have made mention of this a number of times in the House—with the looming oil crisis, these costs are probably understated as opposed to overstated. He says: It’s now up to us to push the Federal Government to act on this report. Certainly, that is what we want to do. I spoke last week in the House on the approaching ‘collision point’, as I described it, where we face increasing energy use, producing more greenhouse gas emissions, manifesting in climate change and leading to global warming. I said at the time that the need for a national energy policy and sustainable policies to be embedded in things like a national energy policy were absolutely critical. This collision point is just as critical as what we do in our cities. After all, that is where most of us live. That Australia is highly urbanised is well understood. We certainly need a national policy that addresses the challenges faced by our cities, and many of those challenges are environmental. Sydney’s ecological footprint is some 27 times the size of the city. We are hemmed in by mountains on

MAIN COMMITTEE 206 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 one side and by the sea on the other. Like all other cities, particularly some others in the Fed- eration, Sydney has no choice but to become genuinely sustainable. As members know, our water use is profligate. We are out of easy options to address dwindling supplies. Our motor vehicle use is out of control. I include myself as one who still drives a motor vehicle. I encourage members to consider the proposals put by the member for Wentworth and others and I also encourage them to consider taking up the option of using LPG in their motor vehicle. It would not entirely reduce greenhouse gas emissions but it would reduce some. We have also absorbed a lot of productive agricultural land in the Sydney basin and we have not had decent planning and public transport infrastructure in place. Future citizens are condemned to longer journeys on roads with more pollution, more sickness, more accidents, more cost to the health system and a drawdown on the ecology of the region which simply cannot be maintained. If we get our cities on a sustainable footing, we will have gone a long way to addressing and resolving some of the big environmental problems that we face as a nation. The Sustainable cities report is important. The fact that it carries bipartisan support gives it greater credence. It is critical for the government to respond not only to this report but with increased urgency to the threat of global warming and the consequences that it has for us all. I refer to a speech given recently by the President of the ACF, Ian Lowe, at the National Press Club. He said: Research released last month by ACF and the Australian Medical Association shows that a ‘business as usual’ approach to greenhouse pollution could result in the transmission zone for dengue fever stretch- ing down the east coast as far as Sydney— the sustainable city that some of us in this House have more interest in because that is where our constituents are. He continues: In the same period annual heat-related deaths are expected to rise from 1,100 a year to between 8,000 and 15,000 a year. A report from the Water Services Association of Australia, released last week, assumes a 25% reduction in water yields from catchments, due to the likely impacts of climate change. That’s a big drop in the drinking water available to Australia’s ... cities. We are aware of the Millennium ecosystem assessment synthesis report, released earlier this year by the United Nations, in which again the warnings are very clear to us. Species loss is accelerating. There is increasing pressure of habitat loss and introduced species and chemical pollution is increasing, and those processes are being supplemented by climate change. In bolder language, Elizabeth Kolbert, writing in the New Yorker some months ago, referred to the situation that we find ourselves in. Until a writer writes it for us, it is impossible for us to imagine that a technologically advanced society such as ours could in essence set about slowly destroying itself. But to some extent that seems to be what is happening. That is why embracing sustainability is so important. On a smaller scale, I noticed an article in the Canberra Times headed ‘Early spring rocks animals: Kosciuszko species feel the heat’. It says: Seasonal variability caused by global warming was already affecting wildlife in Kosciuszko National Park— not far from this house of parliament—

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 207 causing a dramatic decline in numbers for some vulnerable species, a leading alpine ecologist said yesterday. Seventy-five scientists who gathered in South Australia recently to consider the prospects for Adelaide simply made mention of the fact that, within 30 years, the city will be an urban wasteland unless it gets itself on a sustainable footing. That is not to say that there are not many things that (a) we can do or (b) are already being done. I want to make quick mention of the efforts of Randwick City Council. On 11 October this year, Randwick council brought home two prestigious merit certificates for the 14th annual local government management excellence awards. These awards recognised an aspiring young manager, Anne Warner, and the combined development and implementation of the council’s Sustaining Our City program and its strategic 20-year city plan. The general manager, Ray Brownlee, pointed out: Through these projects, Council has developed strong partnerships and is working with the community to preserve and enhance the local environment. It is being done in Randwick. It needs to be done around the nation. Sustainable cities are ultimately about making choices, but it is clearly time that our impact—the impact that we have on the environment—is lightened and lessened. Importantly, we should put these recommendations in their context and understand that having no meaningful national strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in place now means that it will be that much harder to get sustainable cities onto a permanent footing. We urgently need pricing reforms and pollution reduction targets. We do not want slow mo politics from the government on this particular issue. I assert very strongly that a national strategy for climate change is an essential component of any national strategy to deal with sustainable cities. Both are needed. The former links to the latter. The components include a whole-of-government approach; infrastructure support, especially in relation to transport; policy reforms which support greenhouse gas reduction; energy efficiency; taxation reforms which remove disincentives to energy efficiency; elimination of harmful subsidies; and program funding. All of these things—some, if not all, identified in this report—are essential components of an integrated approach to sustainable cities. But, just as importantly, they make up the components of a national greenhouse gas or climate change strategy. I was particularly pleased that the committee took up the idea of an Australian sustainability charter. There is no doubt that the reforms that we saw through COAG—the competition reforms of the 1990s—provided a reasonably effective way within the Federation for us to actually deliver increased efficiencies in areas that COAG addressed. It is particularly important that this aspect of the committee’s report be taken up. Members may be aware—I am sure some are—that there is a process under way initiated by the Treasurer requesting the Productivity Commission to inquire into the impact of competition policy reforms to date. On 14 April the Productivity Commission released its final report. That is under active consideration by COAG and it is moving through the system now. It is important to take a number of things from that report, but I think the most critical thing is the need for a national efficiency target to be set. You cannot drive sustainability reforms unless you have targets, and that is very clearly the challenge that the government has.

MAIN COMMITTEE 208 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

The Productivity Commission acknowledged the impact that productivity reforms had on the environment—those negative impacts—and it pointed out that future reforms will need to be specifically designed to have an environmental benefit. That so-called third wave of reform must include an outcome based approach—yes, through the continuing use of incentive payments, as has happened in the past, but also, if it is to happen successfully in the future, through national sustainability targets. That is one of the keys to creating sustainable cities that is identified by the report, and I commend it. The National Sustainability Commission, which had carriage of the charter targets, should get about its job with some urgency. I want to refer very quickly, if I can, to some other aspects of the report, but before I do that I want to make one comment in answer to other comments that have been made relating to the responsibilities that state governments have, including taking on board the recommendations that this committee has made. Mr Turnbull—What do you think of the desalination plant? Mr GARRETT—I am glad that the member took the opportunity to read my mind because I am just about to advise him. In relation to the proposed desalination plant, I do put it to the member, through the Deputy Speaker, that there is an expectation that governments should prudently plan for the worst-case scenarios that face them in urban planning and that they should have options ready for those scenarios. To that extent, by identifying a desalination plant, the New South Wales government has done the right thing. But in my own view— and I am expressing a personal view as the member for Kingsford Smith—it is a last option and by no means the best option. There are a number of severe disadvantages to the proposal that has been put forward. It is very expensive, it will produce extensive amounts of greenhouse gas emissions and it underestimates the population of Sydney’s capacity to embrace recycling. But, more importantly than any of those, as someone who has been involved in conservation for a very long time, it betrays the first rule of sensible conservation: it is only using the water once. It is not good enough. I hope that the New South Wales government takes note of these comments and of this report. In the time left available to me, let me commend again the work of this committee. The recommendations include governance and policy frameworks, planning and settlement patterns, investigating sustainable modes of transport, implementing education campaigns regarding recycled water and water efficiency schemes, encouraging the use of sustainable building products and practices, making sure that we have a five-star energy rating which actually works in a mandatory sense across all the planning regimes in the Federation, further encouraging the uptake of photovoltaic systems and renewable energy and making the study of the built environment a priority. They are all eminently worth while and important recommendations. As someone who has both inside and outside of the House talked about and worked for extensive periods in my adult life on these issues, I very much hope that they will be taken up by this government as a matter of urgency. Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (12.32 pm)—The Sustainable cities report was produced about two months ago by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage. The committee worked very well and constructively. Its chairman was the member for Moore, Mal Washer, although the inquiry was commenced in the previous parliament under the chairmanship of the member for Dunkley, Bruce Billson. The Liberal members of the committee were Mal Washer, Russell Broadbent, Jackie Kelly, Stewart Macarthur,

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 209

Jason Wood and me and the Labor members were Jennie George, Kelly Hoare, Harry Jenkins and Duncan Kerr. A number of them were on the previous committee and, of course, Phil Bar- resi, the member for Deakin, who is here in the Main Committee today, played a very important role on the committee in the previous parliament. Mr Barresi—Thank you very much, Member for Wentworth. Mr TURNBULL—You assured me of the important role you played a moment ago! So it was a very enjoyable and constructive experience being on the committee and everybody worked together with the common goal of trying to develop innovative ways in which the clearly unsustainable development in our major cities could be addressed. What is sustainability? Peter Newman spoke at a big meeting in the Town Hall last night, at which I also spoke and to which the member for Kingsford Smith, Peter Garrett, just referred. Over a thousand people came to that meeting, which is not a bad roll-up and indicates the level of interest and concern about sustainability. Peter Newman spoke eloquently about this issue and was very generous in his praise of the report. He provided what I think is the best definition of sustainable development, which is from the 1987 World Commission on Envi- ronment and Development, and that is that sustainable development is development which meets ‘the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. That is a very pithy definition of sustainability because it underlines the point that we are not simply talking about our own lives and our own environment but talking about the ability of our children and our grandchildren to survive in the environment that we leave them. As previous speakers have observed, and as the report observes, we are a very urban nation: 80 per cent of Australians live in cities with populations of more than 50,000. Forty per cent of our population live in Sydney and Melbourne alone. There is no question that, by many measures of sustainability, our cities are deteriorating. We are running out of water. The water deficit in Sydney by 2030 will be 38 per cent—that is, we will have a 38 per cent gap between the amount of water we expect to be using and the sustainable yield. We have seen a 60 per cent increase in vehicle kilometres travelled in Sydney between 1980 and 2000. Yet through all of those years we have known—all of us—that oil is a finite resource. We have known about the problems of congestion and pollution. We have known about the obesity that is caused by vehicle dependence. Yet what has happened? Vehicle usage—vehicle kilometres—has gone up, not down. The share of journeys on public transport has decreased. It is extraordinary that, even today, we are seeing more examples of this perverse, wilful refusal to take responsibility for sustainable development in our major cities. And there is no worse example than in the city of Sydney. The Cross City Tunnel, which is currently a major scandal in our city, is one of the most extraordinary episodes of mismanagement in the history of New South Wales. Here you have a tunnel built by a private operator, owned by a private operator, for profit. The right to build the tunnel was awarded by the state government in return for a $100 million up-front payment. It will not surprise you that the state government will do all sorts of things for $100 million in cash up-front. Part of the deal has been to create congestion in all of the neighbouring areas so as to force travellers to use the tunnel and deny people the right to use the roads they have been using for decades—to force them into that tunnel and to pay the toll. But even worse than that: the tunnel contract imposes severe financial penalties on the state govern-

MAIN COMMITTEE 210 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 ment if the traffic on the arterial roads leading towards the tunnel in its catchment area, if you like, drops below specified levels. What does that do? That provides an enormous financial disincentive for the state government to improve public transport. I am sorry that the member for Kingsford Smith has just left the chamber, because he and I share a bipartisan commitment to having better public transport in the eastern suburbs—in particular, a light rail service out towards the eastern suburbs, with the most obvious and desirable route being along Anzac Parade. Honourable members who are familiar with Sydney will know that there is a right of way, now used by buses for the most part, which was established in the days of the trams. That is the obvious place for the extension of light rail from the very inner city out towards the eastern suburbs. Of course the eastern suburbs of Sydney were built around trams originally. That is how suburbs like Bondi, Maroubra and so on were established. If the state government were now to build light rail out to that area, it would presumably be for the purpose of reducing vehicle dependence, getting cars off the road and encouraging people to use public transport. But, if the government did that, it would be exposing itself to a serious financial penalty under this contract. This is one of the most perverse episodes of mismanagement that we have seen in Sydney. But, of course, there is more coming up. As I said to the audience at Sydney Town Hall last night, do not be troubled by the desalination plant, because the crack team that negotiated the Cross City Tunnel contract will no doubt be moving onto the desalination plant. As the member for Kingsford Smith said earlier, desalination is environmentally the worst possible option. It is not a technology which should be ignored—there are some parts of the world where it is the only option—but, as this report discloses, the reality is that creating a cubic metre of fresh water from sea water consumes between four and five times as much energy as creating a cubic metre of fresh water from waste water. As Bob Carr said before he became a propo- nent of desalination, it is bottled electricity—and at a very high energy cost. That is why Syd- ney Water’s own consultants, in their report on the Sydney Water web site, have said the lev- elised cost of that water will be $1.53 a kilolitre, or cubic metre—very expensive water. Any plant of that kind, to be built and to be financed, has to have a take or pay contract; otherwise, the owners of the plant, the financiers of the plant, are at an enormous risk that, if it rains, there will be no demand for their water. Typically, plants of this kind have a take or pay contract where the take or pay alternative is 60 per cent. So if, as has been mooted, the contract were to provide 180 million litres at, say, $1.50 a litre, that is $270 million. The take or pay contract would say: ‘If we do not take the 180 million litres of water at $1.50, we will pay you 60 per cent or 90c per litre.’ So the taxpayers of New South Wales, through their wholly owned water utility, Sydney Water, could be up for $155 million in years when the dams are full and the rains come. So it is an enormous expense. Imagine a five-year period of good rain. We have a very volatile history of rainfall in Australia—it is very hard to project— although all the evidence suggests that we are moving into a period of much lower rainfall. If we build this plant, not only will we be bottling electricity but, even if we are not bottling it, even if the plant is barely ticking over, the taxpayers of New South Wales will be carrying an enormous financial burden. So, in terms of both transport and water, we have an extraordinary situation in our largest city which will lead to unsustainability. Instead of promoting public transport and reducing

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 211 vehicle dependence, the government seems to be hell-bent on speeding up motor cars and slowing down trains. It has entered into contracts that compel it to promote private vehicle usage rather than public transport and which will penalise it if it dares to do what any responsible government would do in this day and age: promote the use of public transport. In a city which is already consuming more water than its sustainable yield, the government decided 10 years ago that it would not build another dam—it ruled out another dam. That was the decision. It decided not to increase the level of the wall at Warragamba Dam. That left only one way of increasing the sustainable yield of Sydney’s water supply in a substantial way, and that was by large-scale recycling. There was literally no other alternative. Because of the geogra- phy of Sydney, it is not possible to acquire large amounts of water from, say, agriculture in the way it can be done in Melbourne and some other cities. Recycling has been almost completely ignored. In Sydney, we recycle less than two per cent of our waste water. Sydney Water has gone to court to try to stop a private company from endeavouring to recycle Sydney’s waste water. That matter is still awaiting a judgment from the Competition Tribunal. The perversity of the state government in New South Wales, in those two very important areas of water and transport, is remarkable. It is no wonder that people are looking to the federal government to provide leadership in these areas. The government has done so already with the National Water Initiative, in which $2 billion has been allocated to the Australian government water fund, one of whose priorities is promoting recycled water in urban areas. Yet have Sydney Water, through the state government, put up their hand and said, ‘We would like a hand from the Australian government water fund for recycling in Sydney’? No, there has been not a word—at least, none that we have heard publicly. We have seen, with AusLink, the commitment of $1.8 billion to improve the north-south rail link on the east coast. That will double the share of freight that can be carried by rail in that corridor over five years. So there is real leadership from the federal government in transport, reducing motor vehicle dependency in terms of freight and promoting responsible use of water via the National Water Initiative. This report recommends that the federal government go a step further and set those very clear sustainability benchmarks, using the model of the National Competition Council to draw in all governments, state and local, through COAG to work together to ensure that, as Com- monwealth monies are allocated to states and local authorities, they will be used in a way that promotes sustainability instead of undermining it. So instead of pouring billions of dollars more into toll roads and tunnels, we would be using the leadership that the Commonwealth can provide to ask the states, particularly the state of New South Wales, ‘What about public transport? What about active transport? Why aren’t you doing more to achieve a more sustainable mix of transport?’ and to say, ‘Unless you do, you will not be getting the funding that you seek.’ That leadership would be consistent with the environmental leadership the federal government has shown through AusLink, through the National Water Initiative and in many other ways. It would ensure, I hope, that the failings of the state government—the sort of lazy com- placency that we have seen over a decade in New South Wales—will not be allowed to continue to subvert the environment, the economy and the prospects of the people of Australia’s largest state and its fairest city.

MAIN COMMITTEE 212 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (12.47 pm)—I rise to speak on the report of the House of Repre- sentatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage entitled Sustainable cities. This is an extremely serious report, put together with great care and attention by members from both sides of the House working together, and a report that takes seriously the health of our cities—cities already overcrowded and increasingly more so—and that deals with congestion, crumbling infrastructure and the places where the vast majority of our populations live and work. In the House, through our joint committees, we have shown time after time that we can work very well when we put politics aside and deal with an issue in a cooperative manner. This is one of the most serious issues, and it will not be solved through an adversarial approach. Solving the issue of how we make our cities sustainable will require a cooperative approach across three levels of government. This is far too serious for us to play the blame game. I congratulate all of those who contributed to the report, the many individuals and organisations who showed great commitment to making things better in our cities and who made a very real contribution to what is a very valuable report. The report makes 32 comprehensive recommendations covering: sustainability in cities and their governance; how the policy frameworks would work; planning and settlement patterns— how people are moving in and out and how we deal with that; public transport issues; the lack of water in our cities and the growing water shortage; building design and how we can, at a fundamental level, improve the sustainability of our cities; energy; research; and feedback. All of these recommendations contribute to a comprehensive approach to moving our cities forward to a more sustainable level. The report begins with a quote from Mr Chris Davis, the CEO of the Australian Water As- sociation. He said: Sustainability is a journey, not a destination. That could not be more true. Certainly the situation that we have arrived at has also been via a journey—a journey along which governments at state and federal levels have pitted themselves against each other. It has been a journey along which, in recent years, the federal government has taken a smaller and smaller role in ensuring that our cities move well and health- ily into the future. Nothing could be more important than solving the problems that confront our cities—water shortages, power shortages, dying creeks, crumbling infrastructure, public transport systems that are clearly not up to the task, and a rising population and the resulting strain on our education and health infrastructure. Implementing the recommendations will take a comprehensive approach from all levels of government. This report is about looking forward. It is not about blaming each other for what has or has not been done, but finding a way to move forward together. Out there in my electorate nobody cares whether it is a state or federal matter. Whether you are talking about health, education or water, people do not know who is responsible—and they do not care. They just want it fixed. We could take a few points out of their books, I think. We just want it fixed too; in this House we should just want it fixed. People are not interested in the blame game. I tried to tell a constituent once that something was a state matter and I received a very eloquent letter explaining to me that the division be-

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 213 tween state and federal governments was my problem, not hers, and that I should not impose it on her. I have taken that well and truly to heart. She is a very wise constituent and it was a very well-written letter. Perhaps I should table it in the parliament just to remind us that while we find those divisions important we actually create them; our constituents do not. I find that one of the best examples is when I meet various individuals who live along our local creeks and who want to get together to do something. Then I realise that it is not just three levels of government but also several government departments that manage the local creeks. It would be difficult for anybody, even one of the most experienced operators in the public sector, to find their way through the range of organisations that govern even the local creek—and I have 30 of them in my electorate. The people elected us this way, and I think they know what they are doing. Election after election, the Australian people elect one party at the state level and a different one at the federal level, and they take a bet each way in the Senate. They do that election after election. They like it that way. That is the way they choose this country to be run. They expect us to work together, and that is our job. Unfortunately, in the recent decade the Commonwealth government has withdrawn from active leadership in ensuring that our cities are sustainable. But past governments have taken a leading role. It is a choice about priorities. Consider the difference. In 1972, for example, the Department of Urban and Regional Development was formed under Tom Uren, with the Commonwealth government actively involving itself in the quality of cities and the quality of life for the people who lived in them. That department was even involved in the issues of sewerage and other essential services. That was an extremely important contribution in the seventies by our Commonwealth government to the health of our cities. Then later, under the Hawke-Keating government, there was the Better Cities Program. Again there was active involvement in the funding of major infrastructure programs, and the funding of the Y link, a major train infrastructure in my electorate of Parramatta. These are both examples of the federal government playing that leadership role in restoring the health of our cities. All members of this committee recognised that Australia is going backwards against nearly every indicator that measures environmental health. They have come up with a fabulous recommendation, which is to establish an Australian sustainability charter. It is an overview that sets national targets for each of the key indicators which show whether our cities are doing well: environmental health, energy, transport and water. They have recommended the establishment of an independent sustainability commission that would monitor progress in cities and administer payments to states and territories for the work that they do. It would monitor performance across agreed targets. That is an extraordinary recommendation that rightly puts the federal government, which is responsible for all of Australia, back in a leading role in considering and monitoring the future of our cities. Importantly for my area, it puts the federal government back in a leadership role when it comes to public transport. For people that live in the cities, particularly the outer suburbs of cities, public transport is one of the crunch issues. For many years of my life I lived in inner city suburbs in Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney. For years I did not have to look up a train or bus timetable. So it came as quite a shock to me when I moved to the western suburbs of Sydney a few years ago that trains did not run every three minutes and you really do have to look up a timetable because sometimes you have to

MAIN COMMITTEE 214 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005 wait half a day for a train. I know that in my area there are stations where trains stop twice a day. Sometimes when the train timetable runs behind in my electorate, trains scheduled to stop at Pendle Hill station simply do not; they head on to the next major hub. This means that people travelling home from work have caught a train scheduled to stop at their station and it simply does not, putting them out by up to an hour when they are trying to get home to their families. That is not just an issue of public transport; it is very much about families as well. People make commitments and expect to be able to get home. There are also major gaps in our transport infrastructure. There is no train line to the northern suburbs at the moment. Although there is a corridor, we still do not have a connection between Parramatta and Chatswood, for example. Major infrastructure projects are needed in my electorate. Given the deterioration of our public transport systems over decades—and it is hard to blame one government when the deterioration has taken place over decades—it is difficult to imagine our state government alone being able to afford the kind of remedial work which is required now in our public transport system. Nearly 50 years ago, half of the people in Sydney went to work by train. Now less than 10 per cent go by train, but I know that in my area at least 50 per cent would like to. This is a major issue that is not just about people getting to work; it is also about business. Getting from one part of the western suburbs of Sydney to another can be quite fraught. Roads do not go in a straight line; they are quite dog-legged across several pages of the street directory. Getting from one business centre to another is quite difficult. As a result, you find that businesses that grow in one geographic area find it difficult to expand their markets into the neighbouring geographic areas, because people simply cannot travel. So the transport and road problems in our major cities are as much about economic issues as about social and environmental ones. It was very dry in Western Sydney when I was doorknocking during the election campaign last year—in fact, I had dust up to my knees most days just from walking across people’s front yards to get to their doors. I can tell you that water was one of the main issues raised. It seems everybody knows that we have a major water crisis and everybody wants to do something about it. They want to do something about it at their own level—in their homes—and they want something done about it at all levels of government. When you consider that, at the moment, about 11 per cent of Sydney’s water is being lost just through leaky pipes, you can see how much work we have to do. One of the recommendations of the report suggests that the National Water Commission should prepare an independent report on water options for cities and regional centres. That is an excellent recommendation. The report also suggests that there should be a national five- star rating for homes and that the first home buyer’s grant should be increased to $10,000 for homes that meet stringent sustainability criteria. These are recommendations that fit absolutely with the will of the community at the moment. In many ways, the community is ahead of us on this issue. The community is prepared to do things well ahead of us. The number of people putting in tanks or trying to find ways to recycle their grey water is phenomenal. This is a major issue out there and it is about time the government and the opposition caught up with the community. This is not even a matter of leadership; it is a matter of catch-up. The people out there are ahead of us on this issue. They are also ahead of us, I think, on the notion of community. The

MAIN COMMITTEE Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 215 word ‘community’ is raised an incredible amount in my electorate. People talk about the difficulties in networking, the decline of the local shopping centre, for example, and the fact that it is not as easy anymore to form relationships and passing relationships with the people in their own area. It is amazing how it sits there as an undercurrent, this separation of one person from another. It is not caused just by the increased business; it is caused by the fact that they do not catch public transport, that they jump in their car and they drive. They do not interact at the drycleaners on the way to work. They do not interact with people. They do not pass through crowds on their way to and from work. The local shopping centre, which was once a market and created a fabulous place for people to meet each other, is in decline. Now people go to the big shopping centres where the sense of community is significantly diminished. These issues are talked about on a daily basis in my area. Again, our constituents, the people we represent, are ahead of us in identifying the disen- franchisement and the loneliness that the breakdown of our community structures, our social structures, in our cities is causing. A lot of the breakdown does not come directly from social activity but from the physical way that our cities are changing and the way those physical changes cause a schism between us, because we do not have the places where we can meet. One thing that is missing in this report—and I put this in as a low-level criticism because I am incredibly impressed by the report; I think it is a very good job—goes to climate change. Again, the population at large is ahead of us on this. It is raised quite often. There is an extraordinary and surprising understanding out there of the Kyoto protocol and what it means. If you live in Western Sydney, where the temperature is four degrees higher than in the inner city anyway, you know very well what environment and pollution can do to your local area in terms of climate change and what an extraordinary difference those small increases in temperature mean. It does get quite hot out there in the summer. In conclusion, this is a great report. I sincerely hope that the government takes up its recommendations. It recommends serious involvement at the federal level in leadership and making sure that our cities continue to be great places to live or, in some cases, that they even revert to being great places to live, because in some areas the damage is really quite substantial. (Time expired) Debate (on motion by Mr Barresi) adjourned. Main Committee adjourned at 1.03 pm

MAIN COMMITTEE 216 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

QUESTIONS IN WRITING

Commonwealth Funded Programs (Question No. 723) Ms Livermore asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 8 March 2005: (1) Does the Minister’s Department administer any Commonwealth funded programs for which community organisations, businesses or individuals in the electoral division of Capricornia can apply for funding: if so, what are they. (2) Does the Minister’s department advertise these funding opportunities: if so, (a) what print or other media outlets have been used for the advertising of each of these programs and (b) were these paid advertisements. (3) With respect to each of the Commonwealth funded programs referred to in part (1), (a) what is its purpose and (b) who is responsible for allocating funds. (4) With respect to each of the Commonwealth funded programs referred to in part (1), how many (a) community organisations, (b) businesses, and (c) individuals in the electoral division of Capricor- nia received funding in 2001 and 2002. (5) What sum of Commonwealth funding did each recipient receive in 2001 and 2002. (6) What is the name and address of each recipient. Mr Truss—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) Yes, the Regional Partnerships program is available to all communities in regional Australia, including the electoral division of Capricornia. (2) The Area Consultative Committees (ACCs) are responsible for promotion of the Regional Partner- ships program and are allocated operational funding to fulfil this responsibility. The Australian Government Regional Information Directory and the Grantslink web site also provide information on applying for Regional Partnerships’ funding. (3) (a) Regional Partnerships’ purpose is outlined in the Regional Partnerships guidelines: The Australian Government’s approach to regional development is to work in partnership with communities, government and the private sector to foster the development of self-reliant communities and regions. This approach is consistent with the Commonwealth’s framework for developing Australia’s regions: Stronger Regions, A Stronger Australia. Regional Partner- ships is a program that delivers on the Australian Government’s approach to regional development (b) There is no specific allocation of funding based on geographical regions under the Regional Partnerships program. Funding of projects is determined in response to assessment of the eligibility of applications received, against the program guidelines. Based on this advice and the recommendations made by ACCs, the Minister decides whether to fund or not fund the project; and whether any conditions should be applied to the funding. (4) to (6) None. The program listed in part 1 was not in operation in 2001 and 2002.

QUESTIONS IN WRITING Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 217

Opinion Polls (Question No. 1068) Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 10 May 2005: (1) Did the department or any agency under the Minister’s portfolio conduct or commission an opinion poll, focus group or market research in 2004; if so, what was the (a) purpose and (b) cost of each opinion poll, focus group or market research survey conducted. (2) What was the name and postal address of each company engaged to conduct the poll, focus group or research. Mr Truss—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) Yes. (a) and (b) Please refer to table below. (2) Please refer to table below. Department of Transport and Regional Services Name Postal address Purpose Cost (GST incl) Quantum Market 96 Bridport St, Albert Park, To conduct an evaluation of the Commonwealth $89,540 Research Victoria 3206 Regional Information Service and its delivery elements. The Social Research 37 Streldon Avenue, Strath- To conduct a survey to monitor changes in $81,811 Centre Pty Ltd more, Victoria 3041 community attitudes and perceptions on a wide range of road safety issues. Socom Pty Ltd Level 2, 19-21 Argyle Place, To conduct focus groups to test the ‘Leading The Australian Gov- South Carlton, Victoria 3053 Practice Model for Development Assessment’ – ernment’s contribu- a model that provides a blueprint for jurisdiction to the cost of the tions for a simpler, more effective approach to project was $80,000. development assessment. Eureka Strategic PO Box 767, Newtown, NSW To undertake research on Australian Govern- $62,601 Research 2042 ment communications with local government. Colmar Brunton Social PO Box 2212, To undertake qualitative and quantitative re- $66, 676 Research Canberra, ACT 2601 search to assist in the development of a communications strategy for the Green Vehicle Guide. Quantum Market 96 Bridport St, Albert Park, To undertake developmental research to help $57,200 Research Victoria 3206 guide decisions on the future of the Australian Government Regional Information Service (AGRIS). Solutions Marketing PO Box 453, Neutral Bay, To undertake independent research on Area $27,500 and Research Pty Ltd NSW 2089. Consultative Committees (ACCs) to determine the level of understanding of the ACC name and role. Quantum Market 96 Bridport St, Albert Park, To conduct focus group testing of advertising $20,900 Research Victoria 3206 concepts for the Commonwealth Regional In- formation Service campaign. Centre for Tourism Centre for Tourism Research, To undertake qualitative research into percep- $19,834 Research University of Canberra, ACT tions of the National Capital following the Aus- 2601 tralian of the Year Awards and Celebrate! Aus- tralia Day Live concert. Centre for Tourism Centre for Tourism Research, To develop a questionnaire for the National $4,268 Research University of Canberra, ACT Capital Exhibition to monitor visitor demograph- 2601 ics and feedback.

QUESTIONS IN WRITING 218 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

Name Postal address Purpose Cost (GST incl) CRM Australia Unit 16, 177-199 Pacific Telemarketing campaign to obtain sales leads for $3,010 Highway, North Sydney 2059 fire emergency response training and fire safety consulting services. Press Ganey Associ- PO Box 5983, Gold Coast To undertake a survey of Christmas Island $2,500 ates Mail Centre, QLD 9726 Hospital inpatients to ascertain patient satisfaction. National Airspace NASIG, c/-DOTARS, PO Box Survey of radio carriage in ultralight aircraft. $896 System Implementa- 594, Canberra, ACT 2601 tion Group

Airservices Australia Name Postal address Purpose Cost (GST incl) Eureka Strategic PO Box 767, Newtown, NSW External customer satisfaction research for $66,599 Research 2042 AirServices Australia. New Focus Suite 3, Level 1, 99 Elizabeth International brand perceptions study for AirSer- $48,968 Street, Sydney, NSW 2000 vices Australia. New Focus Suite 3, Level 1, 99 Elizabeth Annual stakeholder survey for AirServices $29,634 Street, Sydney, NSW 2000 Australia.

Opinion Polls (Question No. 1081) Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 10 May 2005: (1) Did the department or any agency under the Minister’s portfolio conduct or commission an opinion poll, focus group or market research in 2004; if so, what was the (a) purpose and (b) cost of each opinion poll, focus group or market research survey conducted. (2) What was the name and postal address of each company engaged to conduct the poll, focus group or research. Mr Andrews—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Department and portfolio agencies conducted or commissioned opinion polls, focus groups or market research in 2004 as follows: PROJECT PURPOSE COST COM- PANY/ADDRESS To conduct a Review of The objective of the MAEWS is to improve $119,892 (GST inclusive) ORIMA Research Pty the Mature Age Employ- labour force participation of mature age Austra- Ltd, 704/400 St Kilda ment and Workplace lians. The Review covers the following Road, Melbourne, Strategy (MAEWS) MAEWS elements: Victoria 3004. Jobwise Labour Market Update Seminars; Jobwise Workshops; Jobwise Self Help Groups; and Business Learn- ing Networks.

QUESTIONS IN WRITING Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 219

PROJECT PURPOSE COST COM- PANY/ADDRESS A telephone poll was The poll was to determine the level of stake- The telephone poll was designed, Not applicable conducted by the Em- holder satisfaction with management of the conducted and evaluated by ployee Entitlements Employee Entitlements Schemes. officers of the department. Ac- Branch, Workplace Rela- cordingly, all administrative and tions Services Group of the salary costs were absorbed by the department. department as part of its output costs are not separately identified. Employee share ownership To gain a better understanding of employee $164 252 (GST inclusive) TNS Social Research, research project. share ownership (ESO), in order to contribute to PO Box 3343, the development of policy and communication Manuka, ACT 2603 activities, and to increase the effective use of ESO as a workplace relations strategy. Focus groups role con- The purpose of the focus groups was to gain an $50,000 (GST inclusive) TNS Social Research, ducted as part of the In- understanding of Indigenous job seeker per- PO Box 3343, Manuka digenous Servicing by Job spectives on the quality and effectiveness of the ,ACT 2603 Network - Best Practice Job Network services they received in assisting Study. in improving their chances of finding and keeping employment. The purpose of the in-depth interviews was to gain a broader picture of issues surrounding Indigenous servicing by Job Network and to explore the level of interaction between Job Network and community organisations (including IECs and CDEPs) and strategies for improving cooperation between stakeholders. A qualitative study Conducted to examine job seekers’ perceptions $13,664 (GST exclusive) The study was con- and awareness of the operational aspects of a ducted by Employ- range of electronic job search tools. The focus ment Exchange groups examined the usability of Kiosks and the Branch, Job Search JobSearch web site, and the effectiveness of Support Group, Notifications services, the Vocational Profile DEWR and Personal Page. Evaluation of Equal Op- To evaluate clients’ perceptions of EOWA’s $25,764.30 (GST inclusive) Graeme Russell of portunity for Women in 2003 service delivery to quantify for Govern- (formerly) Work and the Workplace (EOWA) ment the outcomes of EOWA’s new service Life Strategies. 2003 Service Delivery. delivery model that has been implemented as a Aequus Partners result of the Unfinished Business Review. Sydney Office 3, 332 Darling Street Bal- main, NSW 2041

Survey One customer satisfaction survey was con- $22,460.90 (GST inclusive) OrimaLevel, 365-67 ducted in 2004. Constitution Avenue, Campbell, ACT 2612

Recruitment Agencies (Question No. 1105) Mr Bowen asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 10 May 2005: (1) What sum was spent on recruitment agencies in (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, and (d) 2004 by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio.

QUESTIONS IN WRITING 220 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

(2) Will the Minister provide a list of the recruitment agencies which are used by the department and agencies in the Minister’s portfolio. Mr Costello—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Australian Bureau of Statistics (1) 2001, $86,675 2002, $143,110 2003, $255,063 2004, $243,239 (2) Adecco Aquarius Communications Drake Employment National Forstaff Ozjobs The Green and Green Group Hays Personnel Services Julia Ross Recruitment Kelly Services Key People Personnel MASTECH Asia Pacific National GC Recruitment Now Recruitment Recruitment Management Company Maximus Solutions/Rod Goodall and Associates Salvation Army Employment Plus Select Australasia Skilled (Quest) Stenhouse Recruitment Services The Personnel Department TMP Worldwide Westaff Windsor Recruitment Wizard Personnel & Office Services Zenith Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (1) The amounts spent on recruitment agencies by the ACCC were as follows: (a) 2001, $555,340.00 (b) 2002, $168,172.05 (c) 2003, $76,773.09 (d) 2004, $140,030.36

QUESTIONS IN WRITING Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 221

(2) The recruitment agencies used by the ACCC are as follows: Adecco Alectus Allstaff Asset Temporary Brook Street Recruiting Corporate Outsourcing Drake Effective People Frontier Group Gillian Beaumon Hamilton James Harvey Recruitment Hays Jane Devereux Julia Ross Recruitment Kelly Services Link Recruitment Manpower Manpower Services Maxima Recruitment Morgan & Banks PKL Personnel Prestige Recruiters Australia Select Australia Small & Associates SOS Spherion Spherion Recruitment Staffing Office Staffing Office Solutions Temps & Co Recruitment The Insight Group The One Umbrella TMP Worldwide eResources Universal Services Westaff Wizard Personnel

QUESTIONS IN WRITING 222 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

Australian Office of Financial Management (1) (a) 2001, $20,514.72 (b) 2002, $90,234.45 (c) 2003, $67,359.98 (d) 2004, $20,019.73 (2) The Australian Office of Financial Management has employed the following recruitment agencies: Allstaff Australia; Careers Unlimited; Hays Accountancy Personnel; Michael Page International; Recruitment Management Company; Select Australasia; TMP. Worldwide; and Westaff. Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (1) (a) 2001, $12,962 (b) 2002, $41,990 (c) 2003, $155,101 (d) 2004, $313,663 (2) Recruitment agencies used over the past five years and with whom in excess of $20,000 was spent: - Hudson Global Resource - Michael Page International - Interpro Australia Pty - Freeman Adams Pty Ltd - Russel Reynolds Assoc - The Whitney Group - Credence International - Apsley Recruitment Pty - KPMG - Paxus IT Recruitment - IT People – A Division - Carmichael Fisher (NSW) - Spencer Stuart - M and T Resources Australian Securities and Investments Commission (1) (a) 2001, $1,359,751.92 (b) 2002, $2,052,697.26 (c) 2003, $1,184,660.83 (d) 2004, $1,831,647.05

QUESTIONS IN WRITING Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 223

(2) Alectus Personnel Pty Ltd Able Employment Group Pty Ltd Adcorp Australia Adecco Australia Pty Ltd Alltech Jr Solution Pty Ltd American Express Australia Limited Apsley Recruitment Pty Ltd Archer Consulting Group Pty Ltd Barber & Bunton Pty Ltd Brian Banks CPA Butler-White Hospitality Services P/L Career People Pty Ltd Carole Thomas & Associates Pty Ltd Caroline Mooi Pty Ltd Catalyst Recruitment Systems Ltd Cherry Solutions Choiceone CHR Group Ltd Cordon Bleu Consultants Aust P/L Corporate Network Solutions Definitive It Resources Pty Ltd DFP Recruitment Services Diskcovery Drake Dunhill Management Services Dunn Transcripts (Australia) Effective People Pty Ltd Employment National Exec.Search Pty Ltd Freeman Adams Recruitment Consultants Futures The Career Consultants Genesis IT Search Pty Ltd Gippsland Business Support Pty Ltd Gippsland Group Training Ltd Glenmarsh Pty Ltd Greythorn Pty Limited Hamilton James & Bruce Hays Personnel Services (Aust) Pty Ltd Highland Partners (Aust) Pty Ltd

QUESTIONS IN WRITING 224 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

Horton International Pty Ltd Hudson Global Resources Hughes-Castell Pty Ltd Humanagement Huntley Recruitment Ian Smilllie Information Enterprises Aust Pty Ltd J.B. Strickland Jane Austin Jane Devereux Pty Ltd Jo Fisher Executive Pty Ltd Jobwire.Com.Au Jonathan Wren Australia Pty Ltd Julia Ross Recruitment Pty Ltd Kelly Services Kelsall Consulting Pty Ltd (Sk59) Kent Douglas & Associates Kinsman Reynolds Consulting Pty Ltd KR Consulting Group Pty Ltd Language Professionals Latrobe Valley Express Law Solutions Learned Friends Pty Ltd Legalease Placements Pty Limited Link Recruitment Lois Wood Recruitment Mahlab Recruitment (Vic) Pty Ltd Management Recruiters Australia Media Matters International Mercer Human Resource Consulting Pty Ltd Michael Page International (Aust)Pty Ltd MJL People Dynamics Pty Ltd Monash University Morgan & Banks Limited Network Recruitment Services Options Consulting Pty Ltd Oz Jobs Paynow For Business Pty Ltd Pegasus IT Consulting Pty Ltd

QUESTIONS IN WRITING Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 225

People In Computers Peter Ryan & Associates Pty Ltd Pinnacle Hospitality People PKL Personnel Priority Appointments Psychronicity Recruit Solutions - Traralgon Recruitment Solutions Limited Resource Options Robert Walters Robyn Cartwright Personnel Pty Ltd Scotlin Contracting Securities Institute Select Australiasia Pty Ltd Shearn Legal Recruitment Sinclair Consulting Group Pty Ltd Smalls Recruiting SMS Management & Technology Softwork People Sols Outsource Legal Services Spherion Outsourcing Solution Pty Ltd Spherion Recruitment Solutions Pty Ltd Staff & Executive Resources Talent2 Pty Ltd The I Group The Insight Group The Navigator Company Pty Ltd The Next Step Recruitment The One Umbrella The Personnel Department Townsville Personnel University Of New South Wales University Of Technology Victoria Wizard Personnel & Office Services Zenith Managment Services Group Australian Taxation Office (1) It is not possible, without the diversion of significant resources, to provide the information requested for recruitment agencies. (2) Adecco Services Pty Ltd

QUESTIONS IN WRITING 226 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

Allstaff Australia Pty Ltd APS Commission Bev Sweeney & Associates Carmody Crichton Consulting Drake Australia Pty Ltd Effective People (Victoria) Pty Ltd Effective People Pty Ltd Egon Zehnder International Pty Ltd Green and Green Group Pty Ltd Greg Ryan and Associates Hays Personnel Services Hoban Recruitment Hudson Global Resources (Aust) P/L Julia Ross Recruitment Ltd Manpower Services Aust P/L MBS Consulting P/L Michael Page International (Australia) Pty Ltd Quadrate Solutions Ray Anders Recruitment Management Company Rod Goodall & Associates Ross Human Directions Limited Select Australasia Pty Ltd Spencer Stuart Australia Spherion Group Limited Spherion Recruitment Solutions The Green and Green Group Pty Ltd The One Umbrella Watermark Search International Westaff (Australia) Pty Ltd Wizard Personnel & Office Services Zenith Management Services Group Pty Ltd Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee (1) and (2) Nil Inspector-General of Taxation (1) (a) NA, (b) NA, (c) NA, (d) $57,470 (2) Blackadder Recruitment Company P/L – for provision of temporary secretarial support. National Competition Council (1) and (2) Nil

QUESTIONS IN WRITING Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 227

Productivity Commission (1) and (2) Nil Treasury (1) (a) 2001 - $1,287,660 (b) 2002 - $941,160 (c) 2003 - $714,200 (d) 2004 - $516,680 (2) Spherion Group Ltd, Adecco Aust Green and Green Group, PCA Pty Ltd Wizard Personnel, Julia Ross Interim HR Solutions, Effective People Westaff, Staffing and Office Solutions Hays Personnel, Informed Sources Pty Ltd Careers Unlimited, Kowalski Kelly Services, All Staff Aust Recruitment Management Company, Select Write Recruitplus ACT, Informed Sources Pty Ltd Igate Australia, Mastech Asia Pacific Professional Careers Australia Commonwealth Property (Question No. 1995) Mr Bowen asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 10 August 2005: (1) What is the name and address of each vacant property under the control of the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio (ie properties not actively used by the agency and not leased out). (2) In respect of each vacant property, (a) why is it not being actively used and (b) what action plans are in place to have it actively used. Mr Costello—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Australian Bureau of Statistics (1) and (2) Nil Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (1) and (2) Nil Australian Office of Financial Management (1) and (2) Nil Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (1) Part of the ground floor of: 243-251 Northbourne Ave Lyneham Canberra ACT 2602 (2) (a) The space is surplus to requirements. (b) It is being promoted for sub-lease.

QUESTIONS IN WRITING 228 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

Australian Securities and Investments Commission (1) and (2) Nil Australian Taxation Office (1) and (2) Nil Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee (1) and (2) Nil Inspector-General of Taxation (1) and (2) Nil National Competition Council (1) and (2) Nil Productivity Commission (1) and (2) Nil Treasury (1) and (2) Nil Commonwealth Property (Question No. 1998) Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 10 Au- gust 2005: (1) What is the name and address of each vacant property under the control of the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio (ie properties not actively used by the agency and not leased out). (2) In respect of each vacant property, (a) why is it not being actively used and (b) what action plans are in place to have it actively used. Mr Truss—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) The National Capital Authority has the following vacant property under its control: The caretakers cottage at Commonwealth Park (Block 5 Section 2 Parkes). The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has the following vacant property under its control: Part Levels 1 and 2, 527 Gregory Terrace, Bowen Hills, Qld. Airservices Australia has a number of vacant properties under its control. Details are provided in the table in part (2) below. (2) National Capital Authority: (a) The property is currently being used for storage and for meetings by staff. (b) The property will shortly be used by maintenance crews as office accommodation. Civil Aviation Safety Authority: (a) and (b) These tenancies were vacated in February 2003 when the office was relocated to larger premises due to expansion. The lessor at the new office has since reimbursed CASA for all costs at the vacated premises as part of the new leasing deal. The leases expired on 31 August 2005.

QUESTIONS IN WRITING Wednesday, 9 November 2005 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 229

Airservices Australia: (1) Property (1) Address (2) (a) (2) (b)

Conjewai VHF Facility Watagan State Forest Technology gains renders facility Investigating options for return of CONJEWAI, NSW surplus to operational require- site to State Forest, and/or alterna- ments. tive user. Tennant Creek Vacant Approx. 1km outside Technology gains renders facility Investigating sale options. Land Tennant Creek Airport, NT surplus to operational requirements.

Elliott Vacant Land Via Stuart Highway Technology gains renders facility Consideration being given to ELLIOT, NT surplus to operational require- disposal. ments.

Tindal Vacant Land Stuart Highway Technology gains renders facility Consideration being given to KATHERINE, NT surplus to operational require- disposal. ments.

Roper Bar Ex- Approx. 25 km west of Technology gains renders facility Consideration being given to Navigational Aid - ROPER BAR, NT surplus to operational require- disposal. Vacant Land ments.

Albury Airport – Office Borella Road, ALBURY Office owned by Airservices and Investigating lease or sale of office AIRPORT, NSW surplus to operational require- to airport related business. ments. Office is on leased airport land. Dubbo - Ex Navigational Mitchell Highway DUBBO, Technology gains renders facility Investigating lease or sale to airport Aid – Vacant Land NSW surplus to operational require- related business. ments.

Wagga Wagga Airport - Wagga Wagga Airport, Facility surplus to operational Investigating sale or alternative use Control Tower NSW requirements. options

Leigh Creek Vacant 10 km from new LEIGH Technology gains renders facility Consideration being given to Land CREEK Airport, NT surplus to operational require- disposal. ments.

Melbourne Airport - Tullamarine Freeway Technology gains renders facility Investigating lease of premises Office (B48) MELB, VIC surplus to operational require- and/or sale. ments.

Melbourne Airport – Ex- Tullamarine Freeway Technology gains renders facility Investigating sale or lease options Transmitter facility. MELB, VIC surplus to operational requirements.

Caiguna Powerhouse – Eyre Highway CAIGUNA, Technology gains renders facility Investigating telecommunication Vacant Land WA surplus to operational require- Site Share options. ments. Mount Granite VHF Tumbarumba, NSW Asset being retained for possible Investigating telecommunication facility. future use as Navigation Aid. Site Share options.

Kalgoorlie Ex – Naviga- Outside Airport southern Technology gains renders facility Investigating sale option tional Aid facility. boundary, KALGOORLIE, surplus to operational require- WA. ments.

QUESTIONS IN WRITING 230 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, 9 November 2005

Commonwealth Property (Question No. 2382) Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 15 Sep- tember 2005: (1) What properties, or lettable floor areas at partially occupied properties, owned by the Common- wealth and in the possession of the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio, are currently not utilised by the department or agency in question, and are not let out. (2) For how long has each property, or part of a property, identified in part (1) been vacant and why has it been left vacant. Mr Truss—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: This question has been adequately responded to by my response to House of Representatives question in writing number 1998.

QUESTIONS IN WRITING